George Galloway

[Andy Bowden]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle2076249.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2076249.ece)

Galloway to be suspended from Commons over IraqRobert Winnett and Holly Watt
GEORGE GALLOWAY, the MP who campaigned against the Iraq war, is to be suspended from parliament over his links to the United Nations oil-for-food programme in Iraq.

The parliamentary standards watchdog will rule this week that Galloway failed properly to declare his links to a charitable appeal partially funded from money made by selling Iraqi oil under Saddam Hussein, according to a source close to the inquiry. The one-month suspension for Galloway, often referred to as “Gorgeous George”, is one of the most severe given to an MP.

Galloway, who was expelled from Labour, is now an MP for the Respect party. He may also be asked to apologise to the Commons for his behaviour but will launch a robust defence of his conduct. He denies any wrongdoing.

The UN oil-for-food programme was set up to allow Saddam to sell Iraqi oil to buy humanitarian supplies, but he corruptly awarded oil contracts to politicians and businessmen around the world.

In 1998 Galloway founded the Mariam Appeal, which campaigned for the lifting of sanctions on Iraq. The appeal, which paid Galloway’s wife and funded international travel for the MP, received almost £450,000 from Fawaz Zureikat, a Jordanian businessman who was also a trustee of the appeal. It subsequently emerged that more than half of this money came from the proceeds of Iraqi oil sales. An investigation by the American Senate alleged that the Mariam Appeal was used by the Iraqi regime to finance Galloway.

However, the MP strenuously denies that he was complicit in any such arrangement and claims he is the victim of a smear campaign. He says he had no idea that the money donated had come from Iraqi oil sales.

The Mariam Appeal, which raised more than £1.4m, has never filed any accounts and the parliamentary authorities have been unable to account for some of the expenditure.

***

Whatever criticisms we have of Galloway/RESPECT there should be condemnation of these punitive measures, which would never and will never be used agains corrupt LP/Tory MP's

[Noah]

I have no idea if it's true. But my aunty, who always worked on the Iraqi-Left Front always said he was getting alot of money from it - I wouldn't be surprised he's not a fucking revolutionary, he's a standard politician.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Now read the case for the defence, before any of you decide this man is guilty before he is proven innocent (I exclude you fron this Andy!!):

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/06/lat...ing-before.html (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/06/latest-attack-on-galloway-dying-before.html)

And a whole lot more, here:

http://www.google.com/search?sitesearch=le...loway&submit=Go (http://www.google.com/search?sitesearch=leninology.blogspot.com&q=Galloway&submit=Go)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrades might like to read this press release from Respect:


The Sunday Times this morning ran a front page story claiming on the basis of an
'authoritative' source that George Galloway is to be suspended from the House of
Commons for a month. If this is so, and we won't know definitively until the
Parliamentary Standards Committee meets on Tuesday, it will be the culmination
of a four year campaign against George over the Mariam Appeal, the campaign he
set up to end the sanctions against Iraq which cost on most estimates the lives
of a million people.

We know the committee has cleared George of any allegation of personal gain from
the Appeal, just as the Charity Commission did, once again, a few weeks ago. The
committee judging George, however, is composed of MPs almost all of whom voted
for the war and includes two prominent members of the Labour Friends of Israel.
In the context of even stalwart Republicans losing faith in the US/UK occupation
of Iraq and the complete vindication of everything that George, as one of the
most prominent anti-war leaders, predicted, it is hardly surprising that this
kangaroo court will seek to impose some penalty on George.

We will provide you with a briefing on the Committee's report as soon as we are
able.

[Andy Bowden]

Whatever political criticisms we have of Galloway, hes not guilty of this. What hes been accused of is using Iraqi oil money for his charity - but not accepting it directly, but through an Iraqi businessman; how exactly was Galloway supposed to know this money was dirty? :wacko:

Can you imagine if Oxfam got money donated to them by a gangster, or Conrad Black etc that was dirty, would they be judged to be fraudsters?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You are right Andy, it is all part of their attempt to discredit the anti-war movement in the run-up perhaps to the attack on Iran.

Blair and Brown are responsible for the deaths of countless thousands, and they are contemplating suspending a man who ran a charity! :wacko:

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 16, 2007 01:45 pm
Whatever political criticisms we have of Galloway, hes not guilty of this. What hes been accused of is using Iraqi oil money for his charity - but not accepting it directly, but through an Iraqi businessman; how exactly was Galloway supposed to know this money was dirty? :wacko:

Can you imagine if Oxfam got money donated to them by a gangster, or Conrad Black etc that was dirty, would they be judged to be fraudsters?
aye how could he know?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This has in fact been timed for the Southall bi-election.

[Intifada]

This is simply yet another attempt to discredit the most outspoken leader of the Anti-War movement.

Instead of doing something about the cash-for-honours scandal, a man who has devoted his political career to defending the Iraqi people from Western aggression is being punished for something he has not been found guilty of doing.

This is "Great" Britain.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Absolutely right, Intifada.

This cartoon just about sums things up:

http://www.leonkuhn.org.uk/cgi/leon.cgi?jp...%20Bloody%20Law (http://www.leonkuhn.org.uk/cgi/leon.cgi?jpeg=enquiries&title=The%20Bloody%20Law)

You'll like this one too:

http://www.leonkuhn.org.uk/cgi/leon.cgi?jp...20Peace%20Envoy (http://www.leonkuhn.org.uk/cgi/leon.cgi?jpeg=Peace_Envoy&title=Middle%20East%20Peace%20Envoy)

Citizen zero posted a copy here:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...entry1292335965 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67810&st=0&#entry1292335965)

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

BBC page about this topic. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6901033.stm)

BBC article

"He said there was "grotesque irony" that Parliament had refused to hold a full inquiry into the Iraq war, but had spent four years "censuring one of the leaders of the anti-war movement for the way that they conducted the anti-sanctions, anti-war campaign"."

thats just like what Galloway does. He's totally hitting the nail on the head. You got to love it when he says stuff like that. It just makes parliament look pathetic.

[Marion]

Hmmm, it also illustrates Galloway's continual desire for self-publicity in his willingness to refer to himself repeatedly as a "leader" of the anti-war movement. However much he may make parliament look pathetic he always manages to do the same to himself as well...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Even better report here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6902635.stm

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marion:


Hmmm, it also illustrates Galloway's continual desire for self-publicity in his willingness to refer to himself repeatedly as a "leader" of the anti-war movement. However much he may make parliament look pathetic he always manages to do the same to himself as well...

So, he is threatened with suspension by those who voted for mass muder, and that is 'self-publicity'?

What planet are you from?? :wacko:

And far from saying he is the leader, he said this:


"censuring one of the leaders of the anti-war movement for the way that they conducted the anti-sanctions, anti-war campaign".

Bold emphasis added, in case you are still blind.

[Marion]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 17, 2007 01:57 pm
And far from saying he is the leader, he said this:


"censuring one of the leaders of the anti-war movement for the way that they conducted the anti-sanctions, anti-war campaign".

Bold emphasis added, in case you are still blind.
Before accusing someone of being blind and trying to take the piss it normally makes sense to make 100% sure that you're not guilty of the crime yourself.

Re-read my post. I did not say Galloway said he was the leader of the anti-war movement. Rather, I said:


his willingness to refer to himself repeatedly as a "leader" of the anti-war movement

Do you want me to patronise you by asking you if you want me to embolden the relevant part of the quote?

Neither did I say anything to suggest that:


he is threatened with suspension by those who voted for mass muder, and that is 'self-publicity'?

Rather I simply suggested that he was, as per usual, using it as an opportunity to publicise himself. In this case in a misleading way as one of the leaders of the anti-war movement. At no time at all did I suggest that his suspension equated to self-publicity - I'm quite happy to accept that he'd really rather not being suspended.

Really, you definitely need to get a grip and think about the way you post.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marion, yes forgive me; I am guilty of the very thing I alleged of you. :blush:

But even so, his description of himself is accurate.

Do you deny he is a leader of that movement?

And why do you think he is continually being attacked?

Because he is the leading anti-war figure in Europe, and one of the leading figures on the planet.

And who else has gone to Washington and given the Senate a dressing down?

In terms of 'speaking to power', he is probably the leading figure.

But, to describe this as 'self-publicity' is a bit rich, and I would say, a little mendacious.

[Marion]

Cheers for the reply.

I'm not so churlish as to suggest that Galloway has done nothing whatsoever in the anti-war movement and he certainly did get a lot of publicity for his speech in the Senate which I thought was excellent.

However, although he got a lot of publicity for various actions I'm not quite sure the extent to which he actually led the movement. It kind of ends up reducing the anti-war movement to the Stop the War Coalition, and (to a lesser extent as he is saying he is only one of the leaders) the Stop the War Coalition to Galloway. If the StWC was as democratic as the members say it was, then surely they were leading Galloway and the other officers rather than the other way round?

I'd say the reason he is being attacked is more because he has set himself up as the figurehead for the anti-war movement (and certainly is to a large number of those in the movement) rather than because he leads it to any real extent.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Here is the latest case for the defence:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/07/oil...n-galloway.html (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/07/oily-cretins-latest-attack-on-galloway.html)

--------------------------------------------

Well, Marion, the US and UK ruling class certainly regard him as a leading figure of the anti-war movement. In the UK, the anti-war movement is virtually identical with the StWC, and of its political baby, Respect, he is one of the leading figures, a position to which he has not appointed himself.


I'd say the reason he is being attacked is more because he has set himself up as the figurehead for the anti-war movement (and certainly is to a large number of those in the movement) rather than because he leads it to any real extent.

You see, you have slipped into using the definite article.

He has not set himself up as "the" leading figure; the movement regards him as one of the leading figures, as he said, and as you note.

How could anyone set themselves up as a leading figure, and then in fact be so recognised as such by most -- and yet still not be a leading figure in fact? That does not make any sense.

You only have to see the reception he gets on every march, and in muslim areas to see that.

And his appearance in front of the US Senate made him world famous, again, especially among muslims.

And that is why he is attacked so often, to try to demoralise the majority of us, and discredit the entire movement.

Your distinction between being a leading figure and an actual leader I can quite agree with; but he never asserted he actually leads the movement, or actively leads it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In fact, here is that article (links missing from the original):


You remember, I think, some years ago there was a libellous story in the Telegraph. The newspaper, still then under the control of the now convicted felon Conrad Black, ran a story about documents purporting to show that George Galloway was in the pay of Saddam Hussein. Galloway was awarded £150,000 in compensation for the defamatory claims, and also full legal costs, amounting to over £1.5m. Justice Eady defined the claims in the newspaper's coverage as containing four basic claims that any ordinary reader would take away:


a) Mr Galloway had been in the pay of Saddam Hussein, secretly receiving sums of the order of £375,000 a year;

b) He diverted monies from the oil-for-food programme, thus depriving Iraqi people, whose interest he had claimed to represent, of food and medicines;

c) He probably used the Mariam Appeal as a front for personal enrichment;

d) What he had done was tantamount to treason.


This was libellous, and these remain defamatory claims to make. However. Immediately upon hearing of the allegations, a pro-war hard-right Tory MP named Andrew Robathan wrote to the Committee on Standards and Privileges to demand that an inquiry be made into them, reminding them as he did that he had fought in the Gulf War. Subsequently a prolonged inquiry was held into this matter, and the Committee has now concluded that George Galloway will be suspended for 18 days from the House of Commons for "damaging the reputation of the House".

This may seem curious. After all, the Commissioners accept Eady's definition of the libellous claims, and the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards either acknowledges that George Galloway did not personally benefit from "moneys derived from the former Iraqi regime", or accepts that George Galloway did make many declarations of interest over Iraq, eleven times. Further, he finds no instance in which monies from the appeal were improperly spent. There is no suggestion that George Galloway attempted to deceive anyone about his involvement in the Appeal or his interest in the matter. The Commissioner does not believe that George Galloway's views or advocacy were a result of receiving money from Saddam Hussein, because he doesn't accept that George Galloway's views changed or that he received money from Saddam Hussein. The complaint made by Andrew Robathan is clearly unsubstantiated: this should have concluded the matter. So, what gives?

Well, here's a clue: the majority of the Committee voted for the war on Iraq. Two of its members are former chairs of the Labour Friends of Israel. One of them, Kevin Barron MP, played a pivotal role in the witch-hunt of miners’ leader Arthur Scargill in 1990. Seasoned red-baiters and warmongers, then, and they had to find him responsible for something. Here is the basis of the suspension: he called into question the motives of the inquiry and therefore brought the House of Commons into disrepute. That is to say, because he dared to suggest that a committee of ten members of parliament might have a political motive, he is suspended. This is pathetic.

Now, the committee did make other complaints, which Galloway disputes, but they say these would have resulted merely in a request for an apology. Namely, they say, George Galloway: didn't use his parliamentary resources in a "reasonable" fashion by using them to help the Appeal (this is stretching the definition of what is "reasonable", but those are the breaks with a bunch of pro-sanctions, pro-war MPs); didn't cooperate with the inquiry and tried to conceal "the true source of Iraqi funding" from them (in fact, the claim that Galloway didn't cooperate is belied by the record of transactions which is available on the website of the committee, in which the Commissioner notes as late as November 2006 that he was very content with Galloway's cooperation); wasn't quite forthcoming enough about declaring his interests (despite the fact that he did discuss it in the House of Commons numerous times, widely advertised the appeal, held meetings in the house, and consequently was satirically known as 'the MP for Baghdad Central'); did not register the Appeal in the Miscellaneous Category (although as they concede, he was not directed to do so when he consulted the previous Commissioner in 1999). This ragbag of petty complaints is the sum of a great effort made over several years to try and impugn the reputation of an antiwar MP.

Added to it are several bizarre implications, which occur throughout the deliberations, but not in the recommendations. At one point, the Commissioner raised a 'suggestion' that had been made to him that Elaine Galloway, George Galloway's former spouse, received £13,000 in payments from the appeal. The Commissioner then claimed to have 'forgotten' who 'suggested' this to him. This allegation of criminal behaviour rests on the person of Ms E Laing, who received payments from the appeal: the implication was that Ms E Laing could be made to look like 'Elaine'. But, as the Commissioner acknowledges, George Galloway tracked down Ms E Laing and passed on the details to him, and so there is no mystery about who Ms E Laing is and what the sum was paid for (secretarial work), and who paid it (Stuart Halford, since she has his personal assistant). So, this smear was introduced into the proceedings and instead of being removed or clarified, was deemed 'peripheral'. Additionally, a photocopy of a purported "minute" of a meeting between Galloway and Hussein in 2002 was introduced at the last minute, having landed on the commissioner's desk some hours before a meeting with Galloway. It was without any explanation as to its specific provenance or how it remained secret until then. It purports to show Galloway suggesting that some of his work on behalf of the Mariam Appeal might be financed by "an oil-related mechanism". The only possible explanation as to its provenance, provided by Ms Alda Barry, was stricken from the record. She explained that it would have been a tape recording. However, since Galloway supplied the Commissioner with the evidence that there had not and could not have been such a tape recording, a letter of apology was sent by the Commissioner on 17th April 2007 to George Galloway, in which he apologised for having tried to prove that such a tape existed. His report nevertheless left open the 'possibility' of such a tape. We are told that it comes from 'intelligence' and that the commissioners "take the view that the alleged record of the meeting between Mr Galloway and Saddam Hussein in August 2002 is authentic", even though they acknowledge that it has not been "substantiated". Similarly, the Committee members decide, citing only one of the experts who looked at the Telegraph's documents (while ignoring the existence of other forged documents), that on balance they think they're probably not forgeries: whether they are forgeries or not, the information contained in them is certainly untrue, as the Commissioner also concedes. They breach their own standards, too, by insisting on including claims made by utterly discredited witnesses, including one "Tony" Zureikat, whose evidence supposedly supports the claims in the 'minute', but who manages to get the time of the meeting wrong by at least six months (he is vague: it happened in Christimas time or New Year, according to him).

Given that the nature of the evidence they adduce is so flimsy, and so disreputable, the Committee's decisions are naturally sparse. You might have thought that a Committee that was confident in its various assumptions would be a bit more harsh than asking for an apology for not having registered the appeal in Miscellaneous and so on. You might have thought that the basis of a suspension from the House of Commons for bringing it into disrepute would be somewhat stronger than that George Galloway said mean things about the committee's motives. Instead, they have produced a great many conclusions, which proceed from ommissions and distortions, and as such the best that they could do with it was trump up some sort of headline-grabbing charge. How pathetic, and how risible. If the Commissioners don't realise that they have brought themselves into disrepute with this disingenuous charade, this can only further confirm the impermeability of the Westminster village to the real world.

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/07/oil...n-galloway.html (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/07/oily-cretins-latest-attack-on-galloway.html)

[Marion]

Well, Marion, the US and UK ruling class certainly regard him as a leading figure of the anti-war movement. In the UK, the anti-war movement is virtually identical with the StWC, and of its political baby, Respect, he is one of the leading figures, a position to which he has not appointed himself.

Well, there's a big difference between being a leading figure and being a leader. That's what I was trying to get with the difference between being a figurehead and a leader. I don't think Galloway has actually particularly led the anti-war movement at all but I do think he is very much associated with it. By the repeated use of the word 'leader' rather than, say, 'figurehead' he is trying to imply he has had a certain amount of control over the movement that, in reality, I don't think he had.

I'd also disagree that the anti-war movement is "virtually identical with the StWC". A number of actions occured that had no connection with the StWC, discussions were entered into, arguments occured, articles written, pamphlets handed out etc that had nothing to do with the StWC. Of course, the StWC as an organisation did have a role as well. I think one of the main things it did was help organise the marches down in London - however, I'm not sure how much that is 'leading' the movement. When I organise a local meeting I don't see myself as 'leading' any movement, just organising a meeting! However, even within the StWC you have the question of how much its activity was 'led' by those in charge and Galloway in particular and how much came from those who were members. To what extent were the many local branch meetings and actions (which were considerable) down to local action and to what extent were they 'led' by Galloway or anyone else?


How could anyone set themselves up as a leading figure, and then in fact be so recognised as such by most -- and yet still not be a leading figure in fact? That does not make any sense.

Totally - that's why I never said he wasn't a leading figure in fact. I think, however, that someone can be a leading figure or a figurehead without actually leading a movement in any real sense whatsoever. The Queen is a figurehead in the UK while the extent to which she 'leads' the country is relatively minimal (certainly compared to others). Football clubs often have mascots which acts as figureheads for the club, yet they aren't the ones making decisions on who is signed, who plays etc etc.

Finally, I'd argue that its pretty clear that by Galloway referring to himself as a 'leader' he is clearly meaning to suggest that he, in some way, led the movement. I think if he'd wanted to say he was a 'figurehead' or a 'leading figure' he'd have used those words. You say


he never asserted he actually leads the movement, or actively leads it.

Well, how else are we meant to interpret his statement that he is "one of the leaders of the anti-war movement"??

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Galloway's response in the UK Guardian:


Once more and yet again I have been cleared of taking a single penny or in any way personally benefiting from the former Iraqi regime through the oil-for-food programme or any other means.

The commissioner's report states that unequivocally no less than six times. The commissioner further states that it would be a "travesty" to describe me as a "paid mouthpiece" and that my actions on Iraq stemmed from "deep conviction".
This is therefore an argument about the funding of a political campaign to lift non-military sanctions on Iraq, which killed one million people, and to stop the rush to a war which has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands more.

The committee appear utterly oblivious to the grotesque irony of a pro-sanctions and pro-war committee of a pro-sanctions and pro-war parliament passing judgment on the work of their opponents, especially in the light of the bloody march of events in Iraq since this inquiry began four years ago.

They describe that as questioning their integrity and bringing parliament into disrepute. The house would do well to honestly calibrate exactly how its reputation on all matters concerning the war in Iraq stands with the public before deciding who precisely has brought it into disrepute.

After a four-year inquiry - costing a fortune in public funds - the report asks me to apologise for not registering consistently the Mariam Appeal I established (the commissioner concedes that I did so, but randomly) and for using House of Commons resources allocated to me to campaign against the policies of those now sitting in judgment on me.

The committee of MPs acknowledges that "had these been the only matters before us, we would have confined ourselves to seeking an apology to the house".

However, in a surprisingly thin-skinned rejoinder, the MPs complain that because I questioned their impartiality and made trenchant criticisms of evidence and witnesses (which, incidentally, they don't attempt to refute in most cases) I am to be suspended for 18 days.

I reiterate that the commissioner is right to state that he found no evidence that I benefited personally in any way from any Iraqi monies and moreover I never asked any of the Mariam Appeal's donors - the King of Saudi Arabia, the Emir of UAE, or Fawaz Zureikat, the chairman of the appeal - from where they earned the wealth from which they made donations to a campaign to end sanctions and war

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/otherpartie...rticle_continue (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/otherparties/story/0,,2128329,00.html#article_continue)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marion, I do not know why you are persuing this. At best you are splitting hairs:


Well, there's a big difference between being a leading figure and being a leader. That's what I was trying to get with the difference between being a figurehead and a leader. I don't think Galloway has actually particularly led the anti-war movement at all but I do think he is very much associated with it. By the repeated use of the word 'leader' rather than, say, 'figurehead' he is trying to imply he has had a certain amount of control over the movement that, in reality, I don't think he had.

Galloway has been a prominent figure on the left now for 20 years or more; a leading figure in the anti-sanctions campaign of the 1990's, and a leading figure in the stop the war movement even before the invasion of Iraq, and much else besides.

Given that he describes himself as one of the leaders of the movement (a description few in that movement would query) your continued hair-splitting is tedious at best, slightly suspicious at worst.


I'd also disagree that the anti-war movement is "virtually identical with the StWC". A number of actions occured that had no connection with the StWC, discussions were entered into, arguments occured, articles written, pamphlets handed out etc that had nothing to do with the StWC. Of course, the StWC as an organisation did have a role as well. I think one of the main things it did was help organise the marches down in London - however, I'm not sure how much that is 'leading' the movement. When I organise a local meeting I don't see myself as 'leading' any movement, just organising a meeting! However, even within the StWC you have the question of how much its activity was 'led' by those in charge and Galloway in particular and how much came from those who were members. To what extent were the many local branch meetings and actions (which were considerable) down to local action and to what extent were they 'led' by Galloway or anyone else?

I do not deny that other things have gone on outside the StWC, that is why I said the movement was virtually (note that word) identical with the StWC.

All the big demonstrations, and the vast majority of the smaller ones have been orgainised by and through them, and much else besides.

They are the public image of that movement.

That does not in any way detract from the things you say, but they pall almost into insignificance beside the things the StWC has done.

If you can point to a demonstration of up to 2 million people that these other groups have put on, or any matching even the smallest the StWC has organised I might consider revising that statement.

But can you?

And if organising these huge marches, which put the movement right on the map around the world, is not leading, then I do not know what is.

Again, that is not to detract from the amazing work done locally by people like yourself, but not a one of you could have mounted the record-breaking demonstrations the StWC managed.

And the two are in fact complementary; had there not been a grass roots movement like the one you mention, the huge demostrations would have been smaller.

But, it does not work the other way round. Had there not been a StWC (or something like it), there would not have been the national and international presence that we saw 4 years ago, and more recently. Local groups could not have pulled it off.

That, if I may say so, is beyond dispute.

Now, I said this:


he never asserted he actually leads the movement, or actively leads it.

You say this:


Well, how else are we meant to interpret his statement that he is "one of the leaders of the anti-war movement"??

Let's look at his actual words:


He said there was "grotesque irony" that Parliament had refused to hold a full inquiry into the Iraq war, but had spent four years "censuring one of the leaders of the anti-war movement for the way that they conducted the anti-sanctions, anti-war campaign".

I have to say that it does bear the interpretation you put on it, but it also bears other interpretations. One of these being that he is part of a leadership, and one of his roles is to be a public figurehead, not an organiser, as I alleged.

I do not personally know which of these is correct, or if some other is the right one, but what I do know is that sections of the ruling class know what they are doing, and they are going after him because he is such a prominent figure.

And that is the important thing, not the hair-splitting you are engaged upon.

When under attack like this we need clarity of vision not hair-splitters.

[Marion]

Well, I don't think I'm splitting hairs. I think its a pretty important question that says a lot about how movements work (an important question) and a lot about how Galloway and others perceive that movement (equally important). I know you're obviously more interested in defending Galloway against the accusations made against him but that doesn't mean Galloway's perception of his role isn't interesting (to me at least!).

To try and be as brief as I can:

1) There hasn't been any evidence stated yet as to any way that Galloway 'led' the anti-war movement. How did he?

2) I was very aware you said the StWC was 'virtually' (and not totally) identical with the anti-war movement. I think this is a huge exaggeration. Millions of people did lots of small and very small things without having any reference to the StWC. Equally, I think lots of the people involved in the local StWC groups would have done exactly the same stuff without there being an StWC. Again, the impression has repeatedly been given by StWC members that it was a member-led organisation. If this is true then in what sense did Galloway lead anything? Or was it not a member-led organisation? What do you think?

3) Totally agree that the large-scale marches depended on a certain amount of organisation and that this is obviously something the StWC officials were heavily involved in (although the extent Galloway was I'm not aware - perhaps you have info I don't?). Again, even if he was, I don't think organising a march (however large) equates to leading a movement. I've helped organise a number of local meetings but if I was to say this made me, in any way whatsoever, a leader of any local movement I'd get the shit ripped out of me.

Regardless of whether he is being deliberately targeted for political activity, I think for him to repeatedly say he was a "leader" of the movement is disingenuous and reflects a tendency to reduce the millions of activities that took place to the actions or positions of a small number of people.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marion:


Well, I don't think I'm splitting hairs. I think its a pretty important question that says a lot about how movements work (an important question) and a lot about how Galloway and others perceive that movement (equally important). I know you're obviously more interested in defending Galloway against the accusations made against him but that doesn't mean Galloway's perception of his role isn't interesting (to me at least!).

This is just a long-winded way of saying you are going to continue to split hairs.


1) There hasn't been any evidence stated yet as to any way that Galloway 'led' the anti-war movement. How did he?

Although you sometimes use the indefintie article, this suggests you still think he is up there on his own as the leader.

We have already covered that.

If you had bothered to check his biography, you'd have seen this, among other things:


He is a founder of the Stop the War Coalition UK and is currently its Vice-President. The Stop The War Coalition mobilized two million people to protest against the war on Iraq (the largest demonstration of people in British history).

http://www.georgegalloway.com/page.php?pag.../biography.html (http://www.georgegalloway.com/page.php?page=content/biography.html)

In Respect:


If Labour had hoped that the 2005 general election would see his departure from frontline politics, it was to be disappointed.

Instead, he ousted the incumbent Labour MP in Bethnal Green and Bow, Oona King, in what was one of the most remarkable results in modern British electoral history.

He polled 15,801 votes, giving him a majority of 823 over King, overturning her previous majority of 10,000.

Mr Galloway fought the election on an anti-war ticket, attacking Tony Blair in his acceptance speech.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4539429.stm

Even a brief trawl through the Respect website will show how active he has been leading the propaganda war against Blair and the war in Iraq.

http://www.respectcoalition.org/

So, he is indeed part of the leadership, is highly active, and is a prominent figurehead.

To all but hair plitters that should answer that query.


2) I was very aware you said the StWC was 'virtually' (and not totally) identical with the anti-war movement. I think this is a huge exaggeration. Millions of people did lots of small and very small things without having any reference to the StWC. Equally, I think lots of the people involved in the local StWC groups would have done exactly the same stuff without there being an StWC. Again, the impression has repeatedly been given by StWC members that it was a member-led organisation. If this is true then in what sense did Galloway lead anything? Or was it not a member-led organisation? What do you think?

I answered that; I suggest you read my previous post again, only more carefully this time.


3) Totally agree that the large-scale marches depended on a certain amount of organisation and that this is obviously something the StWC officials were heavily involved in (although the extent Galloway was I'm not aware - perhaps you have info I don't?). Again, even if he was, I don't think organising a march (however large) equates to leading a movement. I've helped organise a number of local meetings but if I was to say this made me, in any way whatsoever, a leader of any local movement I'd get the shit ripped out of me.

Same comment.


Regardless of whether he is being deliberately targeted for political activity, I think for him to repeatedly say he was a "leader" of the movement is disingenuous and reflects a tendency to reduce the millions of activities that took place to the actions or positions of a small number of people.

Well, I also suggest you go off and set up your own Hair-Splitters Against the War, and see how well you do.

[Marion]

Well, I don't think I'm splitting hairs. I think its a pretty important question that says a lot about how movements work (an important question) and a lot about how Galloway and others perceive that movement (equally important). I know you're obviously more interested in defending Galloway against the accusations made against him but that doesn't mean Galloway's perception of his role isn't interesting (to me at least!).


This is just a long-winded way of saying you are going to continue to split hairs.

Not at all - they are important questions that I'd have thought would be of interest.


1) There hasn't been any evidence stated yet as to any way that Galloway 'led' the anti-war movement. How did he?


Although you sometimes use the indefintie article, this suggests you still think he is up there on his own as the leader.

He said he sees himself as 'a leader', I've continually referred to him as that (rather than 'the leader'). Saying you are 'a leader' means that you do some 'leading' - this is what I'm enquiring about. Moreover, there's nothing in anything I've posted to suggest I think he either is or thinks himself to be 'the' leader so I'm not sure why you're insinuating I do.


He is a founder of the Stop the War Coalition UK and is currently its Vice-President. The Stop The War Coalition mobilized two million people to protest against the war on Iraq (the largest demonstration of people in British history).

Yep, am fully aware of all this without having to check his biography. I still don't see how this means he was 'a leader' of the anti-war movement.

You claim you've responded to my questions but I can't see any evidence of it. You repeatedly try to back up your arguments by referring to the large marches in London and spending little time acknowledging that the anti-war movement was anything more than these. Perhaps it is because its clear that the vast majority of everything else that happened did not depend on Galloway whatsoever. You've failed to show how Galloway had any role in organising these marches and, even if he did, why this makes him 'a leader'. Most importantly, you've failed to answer the question (asked twice) of why Galloway claims he was 'a leader' when most people in the StWC claim it was an organisation that was led by its membership. These are serious questions about how organisations run and their relationship to widespread movements yet you seem to think it is just 'splitting hairs' .

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marion:


Not at all - they are important questions that I'd have thought would be of interest.

In the present circumstances, when the ruling class is on the attack, I agree, they are important, but only to hair-splitters.


He said he sees himself as 'a leader', I've continually referred to him as that (rather than 'the leader'). Saying you are 'a leader' means that you do some 'leading' - this is what I'm enquiring about. Moreover, there's nothing in anything I've posted to suggest I think he either is or thinks himself to be 'the' leader so I'm not sure why you're insinuating I do.

Not so, for just a few posts ago this is what you said:


I'd say the reason he is being attacked is more because he has set himself up as the figurehead for the anti-war movement (and certainly is to a large number of those in the movement) rather than because he leads it to any real extent.

And more recently, this:


1) There hasn't been any evidence stated yet as to any way that Galloway 'led' the anti-war movement. How did he?

This suggests that you either do not know the difference between the definite article and the indefinite (which is quite alarming for a hair-splitter like you), or you really do believe he is one man show.


Yep, am fully aware of all this without having to check his biography. I still don't see how this means he was 'a leader' of the anti-war movement.

Well, you asserted there was no evidence; I post it and you feign insousance.

Why ask for the evidence if you cannot recognise it when you see it?


You claim you've responded to my questions but I can't see any evidence of it. You repeatedly try to back up your arguments by referring to the large marches in London and spending little time acknowledging that the anti-war movement was anything more than these. Perhaps it is because its clear that the vast majority of everything else that happened did not depend on Galloway whatsoever. You've failed to show how Galloway had any role in organising these marches and, even if he did, why this makes him 'a leader'. Most importantly, you've failed to answer the question (asked twice) of why Galloway claims he was 'a leader' when most people in the StWC claim it was an organisation that was led by its membership. These are serious questions about how organisations run and their relationship to widespread movements yet you seem to think it is just 'splitting hairs' .

I think the problem lies in you. Once more: read what I posted and then glue those split hairs together again.

However, having met hair-splitters like you many times, I suspect that you will bash away at this till the cows evolve.

If you are so naive as to launch a hair-splitting exercise in the face of a ruling class attack, then no wonder you cannot see straight.

You seem to me to be the sort of person who would complain about being shot on the grounds that blood stains not match your clothes!

[Gold Against The Soul]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:58 pm
I have no idea if it's true. But my aunty, who always worked on the Iraqi-Left Front always said he was getting alot of money from it - I wouldn't be surprised he's not a fucking revolutionary, he's a standard politician.
Galloway won't take a workers wage and says he couldn't live on three workers wages. That says it all really.

Oh and he supports a 'points system' for immigrants, just like they have in Australia and just like the Tories were advocating at the last election. This man is no socialist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gold against the soul:


Galloway won't take a workers wage and says he couldn't live on three workers wages. That says it all really.

Why?

In a socialist society, where this is decided upon by the mass of workers, fine.

But, his constituents (mostly working class) elected him to this post on that wage; who are you, therefore, to point fingers at him on the back of their vote?


Oh and he supports a 'points system' for immigrants, just like they have in Australia and just like the Tories were advocating at the last election. This man is no socialist.

Proof?

You strike me as even more benighted than hair-splitter extraordinaire here (Marion).

The ruling class is attacking him, and you stick the boot in too.

You are like someone on the Titanic praying for snow.

[Marion]

Hopefully my final post.

1) So you think questions relating to the relation of the anti-war movement to the StWC and Galloway should be suspended because he's under attack by the right-wing? The idea that we cannot raise even the slightest question about him because he's under attack in the Commons is completely risible. Anyway, logically as you're arguing that he 'led' the anti-war movement surely you're the one giving ammunition to the right-wing.

2) As you can't find a reference to me referring to Galloway as "the leader" you find one where I refer to him as "the figurehead" when you know a) they don't mean the same thing, b) even if you do somehow think they mean the same thing I made it absolutely clear I was interpreting them differently, and c) that I only said he set himself up as one and that some people saw him as this. I'll leave others to decide who is being honest or not in their arguments.

3) I'll also leave it to any other readers to judge whether you answered my questions. Just in case, for the last time, given that StWC members repeatedly state that it is a member-led organisation, it what sense did Galloway (or any other official of the StWC) lead the anti-war movement?

PS Indulging in ridiculous verbal attacks on myself and 'Gold Against the Soul' really doesn't do you any favours at all. Especially accusing me of being a hairsplitter when you originally attacked me over a question of semantics and then had to apologise because you'd got your facts entirely wrong.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marion:


Hopefully my final post.

You should have said that about ten ago.


So you think questions relating to the relation of the anti-war movement to the StWC and Galloway should be suspended because he's under attack by the right-wing? The idea that we cannot raise even the slightest question about him because he's under attack in the Commons is completely risible. Anyway, logically as you're arguing that he 'led' the anti-war movement surely you're the one giving ammunition to the right-wing.

He specifically raised this in the light of this attack because he knows that they see him as a leader, and thus one to have a go at.

Now, in the cold light of day, when no one is being attacked, the concerns you raise might be legitimate, they might not.

But it is the height of stupidity to have a go at the same target the ruling class is attacking; that would be about as stupid as criticising someone's foot gear when they are being savaged by a lion!


As you can't find a reference to me referring to Galloway as "the leader" you find one where I refer to him as "the figurehead" when you know a) they don't mean the same thing, b) even if you do somehow think they mean the same thing I made it absolutely clear I was interpreting them differently, and c) that I only said he set himself up as one and that some people saw him as this. I'll leave others to decide who is being honest or not in their arguments.

Well, I would not be having a go at you if you were being attacked in the same way; as it is, and as you are being rather foolish, I am being unreasonable with you. About as unreasonable as you are with him.

But the way your posts have gone, I suspect that every now and again, you think like the right and view him as the leader. And that explains why you have had a go at him, and have missed the big picture. You are as obsessed with leaders as they are.

Now the evidence that you think he is the leader is nowhere near as thin as the evidence you have posted in support of what you allege (which was in fact none at all -- merely anecdote).

But still you point the finger when I have at least tried to supply some (there is plenty more).


PS Indulging in ridiculous verbal attacks on myself and 'Gold Against the Soul' really doesn't do you any favours at all. Especially accusing me of being a hairsplitter when you originally attacked me over a question of semantics and then had to apologise because you'd got your facts entirely wrong.

This is longhand for I, Rosa, care enough about the left not to attack my own side when the ruling class is doing so too; you, on the other hand, are a foolish hair-splitter who would rather get an academic point right first before he will deign to defend his own side!


I'll also leave it to any other readers to judge whether you answered my questions. Just in case, for the last time, given that StWC members repeatedly state that it is a member-led organisation, it what sense did Galloway (or any other official of the StWC) lead the anti-war movement?

And an academic debate like this in the face of the enemy's attacks will rightly be viewed as the height of folly.

Hang your head in shame.

[Gold Against The Soul]

Why?

In a socialist society, where this is decided upon by the mass of workers, fine.

But, his constituents (mostly working class) elected him to this post on that wage; who are you, therefore, to point fingers at him on the back of their vote?

It should be up to RESPECT to demand all elected officials take a workers wage. Why? Well is Galloway in it for the money or not? We should be distancing ourselves from careerist politicians. Galloway thumbs his nose to workers everywhere when he says he needs at least £150,000 a year to "to function properly as a leading figure in a part of the British political system" - http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/s2.cfm?id=565562003


Proof?

He said it in an article in the Morning Star. I can't find it online but there are references to it in a number of other papers:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/578/galloway.htm

"Since then, it has studiously avoided naming Galloway whenever he has aired his reactionary catholic, little Britain views: be it his famous interview with The Independent on Sunday when he declared his opposition to a woman’s right to choose an abortion; his appearance on Question time where he spoke out against euthanasia; or his despicable article in the Morning Star, in which he expounded upon his version of ‘controlled immigration’ and a “points system”.

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/3925

"Writing in the Morning Star on 12 February, George Galloway not only denounced the idea of open borders but endorsed the “points system” for immigration"

This is not hair splitting, is it about principles. Can't live on three workers wages? A supporter of immigration controls? When does he go beyond the pale?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gold Against the Soul:


It should be up to RESPECT to demand all elected officials take a workers wage. Why? Well is Galloway in it for the money or not? We should be distancing ourselves from careerist politicians. Galloway thumbs his nose to workers everywhere when he says he needs at least £150,000 a year to "to function properly as a leading figure in a part of the British political system"

I have already told you what I think. If you do not like it, I suggest you take this up with him and with the working class of his constituency.

And good luck...

And this is from that rag you linked to:


Clearly Respect’s internal dynamic will now change - the scales will tip even more in favour of Galloway. And that is quite something: after all, the Socialist Workers Party has by default given the Respect figurehead carte blanche on pretty much everything. Not only did the SWP use its absolute majority at the October 2004 Respect conference to vote down principled motion after principled motion when they were not to George’s liking (or that of the largely phantom ‘muslim activist’ wing of Respect).

Since then, it has studiously avoided naming Galloway whenever he has aired his reactionary catholic, little Britain views: be it his famous interview with The Independent on Sunday when he declared his opposition to a woman’s right to choose an abortion; his appearance on Question time where he spoke out against euthanasia; or his despicable article in the Morning Star, in which he expounded upon his version of ‘controlled immigration’ and a “points system”. Socialist Worker polemics are with shadows and disembodied opponents.

These lies and smears have been batted out of the park on another thread:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64868&hl=Galloway


This is not hair splitting, is it about principles. Can't live on three workers wages? A supporter of immigration controls? When does he go beyond the pale?

You are right, in your case it's not hair-splitting, its open lying.

Your head is so far up your own rectum you would not be able to see an approaching attack from the ruling class (as his one is) if it sent you a telegram, gave you a French kiss and had your babies.

"Pathetic" would be praise indeed for one such as you.

[Gold Against The Soul]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 07:44 pm
These lies and smears have been batted out of the park on another thread:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64868&hl=Galloway

Nowhere here is there a refutation of the fact that he supports a points system for immigrants. In fact, there are people defending these views.


You are right, in your case it's not hair-splitting, its open lying

What open lying? I read it with my own eyes in the Morning Star and others obviously saw it too, as a quick google of 'Galloway points system' or 'Galloway immigration controls' would illustrate.


Your head is so far up your own rectum you would not be able to see an approaching attack from the ruling class (as his one is) if it sent you a telegram, gave you a French kiss and had your babies

What an earth are you on about? His suspension is a disgrace but that doesn't mean I'll refrain from criticising him where I think it's deserved. And anyway, as if the ruling class are gonna care that I'm knocking him for not taking a workers wage. They want people in parliament they can easily buy off, so they're gonna argue for MP's only taking such a wage. And again, they support immigration controls, just like George. On these issues he is firmly with the bosses.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gold:


Nowhere here is there a refutation of the fact that he supports a points system for immigrants. In fact, there are people defending these views.

Until I see the originals, I suggest different.


What open lying? I read it with my own eyes in the Morning Star and others obviously saw it too, as a quick google of 'Galloway points system' or 'Galloway immigration controls' would illustrate.

Quoting the lies of others uncritically is just as much a lie as writing it in a rag in the first place.


What an earth are you on about? His suspension is a disgrace but that doesn't mean I'll refrain from criticising him where I think it's deserved. And anyway, as if the ruling class are gonna care that I'm knocking him for not taking a workers wage. They want people in parliament they can easily buy off, so they're gonna argue for MP's only taking such a wage. And again, they support immigration controls, just like George. On these issues he is firmly with the bosses.

As I said, head lodged where the sun never shines.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mark Steel on this:


Perhaps the explanation is their procedures were taken from 'Alice in Wonderland'

Published: 18 July 2007

At last a politician has been suspended for their role in the Iraq war. You'd have thought it would have happened before now, and you might have thought when it finally happened, it wouldn't be the politician most prominently against the war. Suspending George Galloway for his conduct in Iraq is as if last week's trial of those failed suicide bombers ended with the judge saying "This was a monstrous crime. So I'm going to let you off, and jail the bloke who chased you through the Underground."

The main reason given for the suspension is that some of the money for Galloway's charity came from a dodgy Jordanian businessman. Is this the normal attitude with charities, that no donation should be accepted without the donor being investigated? Maybe it's a new culture, and in next year's "Children in Need", Terry Wogan will say: "And how about this? We've had a grand donation of £25 from Mrs Wimthorpe in Derby. Well I've got one thing to say - who the hell are you, Wimthorpe, and what's your game? We're going to go through you with a microscope and if you've put one finger out of line you can keep your dirty money you old scallywag, spina bifida doesn't need you."

Another source of friction is that Galloway's charity, The Mariam Appeal, which assisted sick Iraqis who were suffering from the effects of sanctions against their country, was political in that it was against those sanctions. In other words, it was against the thing causing the suffering. And that's wrong, apparently.

So presumably there will also be investigations into appeals for victims of earthquakes. How dare these people oppose earthquakes in the name of charity? At least they should be balanced, and allow space for supporters of earthquakes to present their side of the story.

The original investigation into Galloway's dealings in Iraq came when The Daily Telegraph accused him of taking money from Saddam, an allegation that cost them £150,000 when they lost the libel case. Now, despite their acceptance he didn't take a penny for himself, the parliamentary committee says his charity "damaged the reputation of the house". So there's the explanation - the full report probably went: "You mean you weren't on the take? How the bloody hell does that make the rest of us look, you bastard?"

Somehow, however, the diligent committee seems to have missed other possible examples of the house being brought into disrepute, such as a Prime Minister taking the country into war because "I have no doubt that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction - absolutely no doubt, no doubt whatsoever."

And insisting we could be attacked in 45 minutes when he knew this was bollocks; and ignoring his own intelligence that this would make us targets for terrorism; and ignoring the UN and the weapons inspectors, so assisting in the creation of mass carnage, while he swans off to make millions from his memoirs.

If they want to investigate corruption in the Middle East, they could look at the $300m taken in cash from the Central Bank in Iraq, and secretly flown to Beirut in a chartered jet to buy arms, organised by the Iraqi Defence Minister whom we helped put in place. This led to his colleague, national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie saying: "I am sorry to say that the corruption is worse now than in the Saddam era." No wonder Blair resigned - how do you top helping to make Iraq more corrupt than under Saddam? In his new job, is he planning to make Afghanistan less keen on heavy metal and women's football than under the Taliban?

Or the committee could glance at the billion pounds in illegal payments made to Saudi Arabia in order to secure arms deals for British Aerospace. Unlike Galloway's crime, parliament decided this matter was too trivial to warrant an inquiry. And if they did find them guilty, they'd have probably ordered them to pay it back at one dollar a week.

But instead, the person suspended is the one who opposed these things. The only explanation is the Commons procedures were originally taken from a chapter in Alice in Wonderland, in which you get charged by the authorities for being an un-criminal. And maybe that's the plan for our whole legal system, so you'll be sent to prison for being an un-corrupt arms dealer, or an un-robber, while liberal types complain that prison doesn't work because most un-criminals re-offend, and if you lock someone up for not stealing a car, when they're released they'll do something even worse such as not rob a bank.

Meanwhile robbers and murderers will be allowed to stay free, but only if they remember to ask you to draw a line under robbery and murder, and accept that, hand on heart, you thought that robbery and murder was right at the time.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnist...icle2779407.ece (http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/mark_steel/article2779407.ece)

[Herman]

More Galloway bashing? Because he got kicked out of parliament? Self-publicity? Oh yes! I suppose that a worker getting fired and then reporting it to a newspaper must be self-publicity!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Watch Galloway defend himself on the UK Parliament Channel today, sometime after 1530.

There is no time limit on him, and he can say what he likes (unless the Speaker unilaterally changes the rules).

So, this will be US Senate revisited!

Watch it -- or don't.

[There should be reports on the BBC later today.]

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

thisis on BBC Parliament right?



Should be good, i love it when hes "unleashed" and just goes wild!!!

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

any idea when hes on, Hilary Benn is taking about floods now



it goes on untill 7.30

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Becasuse of delays, he bagan about 6pm; but was kicked out on proceedural grounds after about 40 minutes.

They alleged was making personal attacks, and booted him out, and then proceeded to make personal attacks on him!

He did manage to make some very good points, but they continually interrupted him.

So, the US Senate was fairer to him than the UK Parliament!

It should be on YouTube later.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Its a discrase that he was kicked out. But the suttering tomato of a speaker kept interupting him. His defence was based on "personal attacks" which were very amusing and true. He would have been suspended any way ina vote


You could see it coming all the same

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Too right. The decision was made before the 'debate ' began.

You can watch it here, but you have to watch about 40 odd minutes of boring debate on other things first.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_...nt/default.stm# (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/default.stm#)

The thing is that hundreds of thousands of people will see the hypocrisy.

Much better version here, with the boring debates edited out:

http://www.spiderednews.com/GeorgeGalloway.htm?vid=139917

[MYSTIC OWL]

I saw the British Parliament disgracing itself in front of the whole world when it prevented George Galloway from defending himself in the debate on the motion of the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

The Committee has 10 members and 6 of them voted in favour of the war on Iraq in 2003 and two were (conveniently) absent !! :D

There is a pro war bias built into the Committee and there is a general hostility towards Mr Galloway for the ouspoken (and lone) opposition he has provided to the recent military ventures undertaken by our country.

It was, therefore, EXPECTED to put the boot into Mr Galloway and they did not disappoint. At a time when the country is crying out for answers as to how the worlds oldest Parliamentary democracy was hijacked into an illegal military expedition in Iraq, Parliamentarians themselves are engaged in throwing 'red herrings' in all directions to deflect us from the nightmare that in engulfing the planet from their epicentres in Baghdad and Kabul . . . (soon to be joined by Islamabad).

The censure motion against Mr Galloway does not compare with the real gems like 'The Dodgy Dossier' or the Hutton Enquiry, but, it shows how the British Parliament is more concerned with protecting its own outdated conventions and rituals then with serious business of protecting our liberties and democracy.

A statue of Guy Fawkes in Parliament Square would be a fitting symbol of how our country feels about this bankrupt institution.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Originally posted by MYSTIC [email protected] 24, 2007 01:23 pm


A statue of Guy Fawkes in Parliament Square would be a fitting symbol of how our country feels about this bankrupt institution.
:lol: Have you seen the t-shirts on red molotov of him???


as George said he had personal diagreements with many members of the commite and they expected it to be a fair one!!!

I loved this bit

"Being questioned by this house on organisation fund-raising is like being told not to slouch by the hunch back of Notradame"

[Dr Mindbender]

shit, missed it. :(

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 24, 2007 05:42 pm
shit, missed it. :(
link to video above

[MYSTIC OWL]

Don't worry about George - he can take care of himself (AND) . . .

I suspect, most people watching the debate would have had much sympathy for his stance. Certainly, everyone appreciates the shortcomings of Parliament, but, they have now reached the point when there is not even an appearance of accountability left, anymore.

I hear that George is flying off to New Zealand this week to bolster the opposition to the war there. Do you think he'll give his entire defence speech on the plane to all the passengers and crew ?! :(

Alright, may be NOT!!

[MYSTIC OWL]

Ask the average Britisher on the street to name an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq and 9 times out of 10 they will name George Galloway. He has not been hands on in terms of organisation, but, he has been a tireless speaker/campaigner/debater.

Mr Galloway has interests beyond politics . . . he has been a success in the media and it has returned him a nice living. Often, he has used his media profile to draw attention to issues close to his heart and to win people to his viewpoint.

It is possible that he may not contest his Bethnal Green seat at the next general election and move into the media on a permanent basis.

I don't know how this will effect the Respect Party because there is nobody else of Mr Galloways profile in the organisation that could take over.

The Respect Party may collapse if Mr Galloway resigns from politics. However, I think the StopTheWarColalition will continue.

[Janus]

Merged

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Gold Against The Soul+July 18, 2007 02:49 pm--> (Gold Against The Soul @ July 18, 2007 02:49 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 10:58 pm
I have no idea if it's true. But my aunty, who always worked on the Iraqi-Left Front always said he was getting alot of money from it - I wouldn't be surprised he's not a fucking revolutionary, he's a standard politician.
Galloway won't take a workers wage and says he couldn't live on three workers wages. That says it all really.

Oh and he supports a 'points system' for immigrants, just like they have in Australia and just like the Tories were advocating at the last election. This man is no socialist. [/b]
Exactly. He is a reactionary careerist that only cares about money. Why does he need 150,000 Pounds a year anyway? So he can make the payments on his million pound flat and his Ferrari? His stances (anti-choice, anti-immigrants, etc.) are also very reactionary. He is just some thinly veiled right-wing hack.

[Louis Pio]

In my oppinion the only reason why some people need to paint a picture of Galloway as some sort of leftist is because RESPECT needed some known "brand" to disguise the poor quality of the "product".

Quite alot of examples have been given and ignored unfortunately.

[Gold Against The Soul]

Thought this was worth bringing to the fore again, given recent events. What of him now?

[Philosophical Materialist]

Originally posted by Gold Against The [email protected] 04, 2007 01:49 pm
Thought this was worth bringing to the fore again, given recent events. What of him now?
A lot of the accusations levelled against him by the reactionary media are bullshit. However Galloway is a pseudo-leftist chauvinist who puts Galloway before anything else.