Ever since his appearance in front of the Senate Permanent Sub-committee on Investigations, chaired by Senator Norm Coleman, George Galloway has become something of a folk hero on Daily Kos.
Indeed, who can forget the shifting in his seat and shocked facial expression of Coleman as Galloway brilliantly tore into him and accused the hapless Senator of being a "pro-war, neo-con hawk and the lickspittle of George Bush" presiding over the "mother of all smoke screens".
To now advise caution over Galloway is likely to reverberate badly in what has become an echo-chamber of admiration for him. Even Brits on DKos and certainly on New International Times are ready to jump on me for being less than enthusiastic.
An excellent summary of Galloway's recent career and the charges against him are neatly provided
here by the Times newspaper.
Make no mistake about my beliefs. It seems clear to me that Galloway is, and has been for some time, a target. The latest allegations, that reveal details of his wife's bank account, I feel must have had assistance from British intelligence. The man has made himself an enemy of powerful forces on both sides of the Atlantic.
I would also commend to you an article written some time ago in the Guardian by the weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who himself found that he became a target of a smear campaign.
He wrote in 2003:
The charges made against Galloway are serious and they should be thoroughly investigated. Do these charges have any merit? I will continue to operate under the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. I hope the charges against George Galloway are baseless but, to be honest, I simply don't know.
Ritter speaks eloquently of contacts with Galloway that earned his respect and he concluded, in 2003:
To allow George Galloway to be silenced now, when his criticisms of British policy over Iraq have been shown to be fundamentally sound, would be a travesty of democracy. Rather than casting him aside, the British people should reconsider his statements in the light of the emerging reality that it is Blair and not Galloway who has been saying things worthy of investigation.
Well, like Ritter, I simply don't know either if these latest charges have any merit. I do know that Galloway lost the respect of many British people when he was filmed fawning all over Saddam Hussein. Forget the outrage over him in the UK press and their knee jerk, populist reaction to what is fed to them by our government. Take a bit more seriously some of those on the left who have been worried about Gorgeous George since the early 1990's. Go as far left as the Marxist
Alliance for Workers' Liberty who could put aside their hatred of Blair just long enough to write this in 2003:
Saddam Hussein has misruled Iraq for a quarter of a century. The independent Iraqi labour movement was long ago crushed, its militants killed and jailed.
Saddam Hussein is an Iraqi-scale cross between Hitler and Stalin. His regime is one of the most murderous in a world in which savagely repressive regimes are no rarity.
Now, despite Saddam Hussein, it was necessary to oppose the US-led onslaught on Iraq three years ago as Socialist Organiser opposed it. It is necessary now to oppose sanctions. But that does not require of socialists that they support Saddam Hussein, fawn like power-worshipping courtiers before a mass murderer, or make tight-throated, awe-struck speeches in his presence, in praise of his "strength", "courage" and "indefatigability".
Indeed, to link the demand that UN sanctions be lifted with praise for Saddam Hussein is to discredit the anti-sanctions cause with many who do not want to go on punishing the Iraqi people with sanctions but would like to see Saddam Hussein in hell.
The facts seem to be these. George Galloway, MP for Dundee East, was one of a delegation of European MPs who presented Saddam Hussein with a pennant from Palestinian youth in the Israeli occupied territories. His Scottish voice grave with sincerity, Galloway stood within smelling distance of the Iraqi dictator and addressed him directly:
"Sir, we salute your courage, your strength and your indefatigability".
He then went on to assure Saddam Hussein that Palestinians he had just visited were naming their children after him. He ended his speech with the words "we are with you", and then some words in Arabic which the BBC translated as: "Until victory! Until Jerusalem!"
At first Galloway tried to weasel it out, denying that he had been addressing Saddam Hussein. He had, he said in face of the evidence of cameras and microphones, merely been saluting the Iraqi people, not Saddam Hussein. He later admitted under pressure that the words, which began with "sir", were addressed directly to the indefatigable and, unfortunately, strong dictator.
A salute to the people of Iraq would be spectacularly ill addressed were it to be delivered to a dictator who oppresses and slaughters Shias and Kurds, who make up the majority of the people in the Iraqi state.
Sicker still was Galloway's last salutation in Arabic to the man who rained rockets on Israel three years ago: "Until Jerusalem!" What can that mean if not blatant warmongering: until "we" have conquered Israel?
The sight of Galloway standing respectfully before that mass murderer and oppressor of his own people, and presuming to speak in the name of the left of the British labour movement ...... is the latest terrible measure of the moral, political and intellectual decay of the official left.
I do not pretend to know, any more than Scott Ritter, the truth of these matters. I certainly don't become involved in the polemics of the extreme left. My own view is that you should enjoy Galloway for the pugnacious fighter that he is and as someone who will stand up to having become a major target of your administration. At the same time, be cautious. Don't nail your flag to his mast. Don't make him a spokesman for anything that you believe in that matters to you.
Meanwhile, bless his cotton socks ( a Brit expression) he has done us a great service today. I have a strong feeling that Coleman has issued the perjury charges at this time to say "Well, if some of our guys are going to be accused, we'll accuse one of theirs". George's response? Typically pugnacious: "Then indict me for perjury if you believe that you have evidence".
That sends slamming back in their face the attempts of the Republicans to dismiss the Fitzgerald actions. Perjury, the simple act of lying, is deemed important by Republicans in the case of George Galloway, so how much more important must it be in the case of the White House itself?
I think that Coleman has scored an own goal against the Republicans. Our message is simple and we have George to thank for allowing us to say it at his invitation:
YES, PERJURY AND LIES ARE SERIOUS. ALL THOSE WHO COMMIT SUCH ACTS SHOULD BE INDICTED, TRIED AND SENTENCED Thank you Mr Coleman for making this, the really important message of the Galloway affair, so clear for us.