This post started as one of a number of responses to a series of challenges made by a couple of kossacks regarding my diary of May 25th entitled
George Galloway, Saddam Hussein and the left.
It grew beyond the scope of a simple response, so I offer it here as a diary instead.
One of the respondents,
Jphurst, wrote in part:
"Support for Saddam now can only be chalked up to either 1) reflexive anti-American views, or 2) reflexive anti-Israel views, or 3) that he had something to gain."
"As much as I opposed the war, I simply cannot respect Galloway. He is a terrible stain on the left."
Here is my answer.
Let's see here...
Reflexive: characterized by habitual and unthinking behavior
(Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
There are other definitions, but I am sure that this is how you meant to use this word.
Did you read Galloway's testimony?
Have you seen any of his appearances in the media? (Had to look fast...he scared 'em to DEATH. Charlie (Middle of the Road) Rose looked as if he was going to toss his milk and cookies trying to soft-soap this hard-liner.)
He is the OPPOSITE of "unthinking". He is smart as a whip. And far from behaving in a habitual manner, he is a first class improviser.
If anything, it was his questioners who acted in reflexive manners. The rictus-like smile that came and went on that asshole from Minnesota Coleman's face as Galloway fronted him time and again reminded me of the actions of sea anemones that you see so often on nature shows.
Sit, sit, sit, sit...DO SOMETHING!!!
Sit, sit, sit, sit, sit, sit ...DO IT AGAIN!!!
Y'see...this is what most bothers me about much of the left.
Anyone who disagrees with them is labeled "reflexive".
Which is a word that certain kinds of "smart" people use for stupid.
And the segment of the left to which you apparently belong...the good, grey, honest, middle class left...is SURROUNDED by people who disagree with them.
On ALL sides. (That's what being "centrist" really means. Being surrounded.)
Now, some of these enemies may be...no, are CERTAINLY...dishonest, and a number of them may be driven by other histories and other philosophies, but (Now listen to me here...) they are NOT "stupid".
Not all of them, at any rate.
And one of the reasons that the left...the goals of which are quite laudable, all in all...is IN the trouble in which it almost perennially finds itself is that it is really often the "reflexive" party, dismissing its opponents as reflexive, as unthinking, when in fact they are often some smart, crafty sons of bitches and they may even (Please don't faint here...) be right once in a while.
The right wing, on the other hand, treats the left not in a cavalier, dismissive way; instead they fight tooth and nail. THEY believe that their enemies are fairly intelligent, but weak. Spoiled intellectual brats who can be pushed around because they don't want to risk having their glasses broken or getting their hands dirty messing with the insides of the mechanisms of power.
And unfortunately, these right wingers are often quite correct.
Now Galloway does not represent the right wing, but you have made the same mistake by which the left historically hangs itself.
"As much as I opposed the war, I simply cannot respect Galloway. He is a terrible stain on the left.", you say.
Prove it.
And until you do, please try to remember this ancient concept..."The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Mr./Ms. "one of the people" stated earlier on this thread as supposed proof of Galloway's guilt that The Independent and other newspapers which supported the Liberal Democrats in the recent British elections opposed Galloway because of his supposed nefarious financial dealings and his anti-"Coalition" (The Gang of Two. WHAT "coalition"? What a ludicrous name.), pro-Islamic attitudes.
Now I am not privy to the ins and outs of British politics, since I live in da Bronx and can barely handle what goes on here in the U.S., but forgive me if I point this out...THERE IS NOT A NEWSPAPER IN THE WORLD THAT DOES NOT HAVE A POLITICAL AXE TO GRIND OF ONE KIND OR ANOTHER, AND MOST OF THEM ARE QUITE CAPABLE OF GRINDING SAID AXES ON WHOMEVER'S ASS GETS IN THE WAY OF THEIR GOALS WITH ABSOLUTELY NO CONCERN FOR THE "TRUTH" OF THE MATTERS BEING CONSIDERED.
So name me no newspapers in your search for "the truth" about George Galloway.
The PUBLIC truth is that he has opposed the U.S. and its adventures in the Middle East for quite some time, and MY "truth" is that those adventures and the attitudes from which they stem are threatening to the very existence of this country and its culture.
So until someone actually proves in a court of law beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that Mr. Galloway is just in it for the swag...I will remain in his corner.
And even if they DO "prove" that...
Number one I am not all that trusting of the so-called justice system here or in the U. K. either and number two...
Is lining your pockets as great a crime as being responsible for the deaths of literally hundreds of thousands all over the world and the ruination of the lives of millions...maybe even billions...more? Which are the crimes of which I believe the corporate entities that run this administration are guilty?
I think not.
If you think otherwise...best of luck to you and may your children survive your error.
AG
P.S. A quick perusal of your (Jphurst's) comments here shows that of the last 26, 25 were directly related to Israel and/or Jewish matters. Once again, as seems to be the case with my other critic here, Mr./Ms one of the people, it appears to me that the basis for your antipathy towards Galloway is not his supposed dishonesty at all but rather his position on Israel or at the very LEAST the effect those positions have HAD on Israel.
You say in one of your comments (here) "The difference is...Galloway DOESN'T believe Israel has a right to exist", and when challenged on that statement and asked for a link to prove it, you do not respond.
Now, as I said in a previous response on this thread, I have no solutions to Israel's dilemma. Its position is an accident of history, and I wish both Israel AND its enemies the best of luck in coming to some sort of peaceful agreement.
But we are really not TALKING about "Israel" here. We are speaking about George Galloway's position and his motives for occupying that position. Frankly, I do not know WHAT his position is on Israel's right to exist, and apparently neither do you. But if your main motivation is to protect Israel, then it is perfectly obvious that your position is consistent with that aim.
Once again, a corollary to the idea ""The enemy of my enemy is my friend" appears to apply here.
"The friend of my enemy is my enemy"
Is THAT where you are REALLY coming from?
Well if it is...consider this.
Is the Islamic world Israel's REAL "enemy"? Or has Israel been maneuvered by the United States into being its attack dog/red herring/buffer in an unwinnable fight?
Long range, I do not believe that the corporate owners of the current administration give a flying FUCK about Israel OR the Jews. Or ANY group of people on earth INCLUDING the population of the United States.
They just want to continue turning a profit.
The bottom line here IS the bottom line, and the left had best realize this before it's too late.
It's not about Israel; it's not about the American dream or democracy, and it is not about any sort of peace or compromise.
It is about PROFITS.
And even if George Galloway HAS made a few bucks on the side...in the immortal words of the unindicted and unrepentant American political crook and prophet George Washington Plunkitt, "I saw my opportunities and I took 'em."
In a scale of profit-taking that includes the Saudi royal family and BushCo, Mr. Galloway's potential profits barely show up on the charts.
So there it is.
You tear into Mr. Galloway as some sort of reflexive anti-American and habitual thief, and then what? Turn back to your good grey NY Times and read up on the best new restaurants in which to eat the foods of the peoples we have so far conquered?
Talk about reflexive!!!
Please.