While
real Democrats have been reveling in the spectacle of a politician who is not utterly cowed by the White House, and who openly calls them the liars that they are, the Lieberman clones down at
The New Republic are quietly stewing in their juices.
The New Republic, you see, can't stand George Galloway. In one article he is called a "hardened leftist," even as he is also, contradictorily, accused of being a supporter of Saddam Hussain. He even, we are lead to believe, has incited "foreign forces to rise up against British troops." Perhaps his biggest crime, however, is that he apparently " managed to persuade his hometown of Dundee in Scotland to symbolically partner with the West Bank city of Nablus."
Why does The New Republic have it in for Galloway?
It's not because he's a leftist. It's not even because of his sympathy for the Palestinians. I'll explain below the fold.
Here's the full
New Republic quote, so you'll see I'm not making this shit up:
Galloway, dubbed "Gorgeous George," has been an MP since 1987 and is regarded as one of the House of Commons' most gifted orators. He is also one of its most hardened leftists. "I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life," he told the Guardian in 2002. The signature issue of his political career, however, has been the Middle East. Even before he was elected to Parliament, Galloway managed to persuade his hometown of Dundee in Scotland to symbolically partner with the West Bank city of Nablus. Since Blair became party leader in 1994, Galloway has been a constant thorn in the side of New Labour. His support for Saddam --he earned the nickname "the member for Baghdad Central" and in 2002 he wrote of his experience on "the crowded dance floor of a North African nightclub ... dancing with Tariq Aziz, the deputy prime minister of Iraq"-- stretched the relationship to its breaking point. In November 2003 he was expelled from the party for what Labour Chairman Ian McCartney described as inciting "foreign forces to rise up against British troops."
Before I explain the roots of TNR's embarrassing display of petulant frivolity and ressentiment, allow me to say that after yesterday's testimony, I feel personally vindicated. You see, for the last two weeks I have been boycotting Joshua Marshall's Talking Points Memo (not that anyone cares... but it's the principle of the thing).
You see, two weeks ago I was reading Talking Points Memo when I came across the above TNR quote. Was it being cited to illustrate what a bunch of bogus, DLC, Lieberman-loving frauds the folks down at the TNR are?
Au contraire! That bit of TNR garbage was actually being introduced to by one of Josh's guest bloggers to buttress his own pathetic excuse for blog-journalism. The guest blogger himself was even more hysterical than the TNR he quotes. Here's his lead-in:
Word just came in that the far-far-far left, Islamist candidate George Galloway has defeated Oona King --daughter of an ex-pat African-American civil rights activist and Jewish mother-- in the east London constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow. Galloway is not just anti-war and anti-American, he is pro-Saddam. Read what James Forsythe wrote in the New Republic Online about Galloway
Link containing both the guest blogger's comment and the TNR it refers to.
First of all, I won't even comment upon the blogger's shamelessly smarmy attempt to play the race-card [I'll let the UK based Black Information Link do that for me --see below.]
But what's up with calling Galloway with "anti-American"? And citing the TNR as "evidence"? Yesterday, Galloway showed us quite clearly who the real anti-Americans are: those who sit in the White House and lie to the American public, and those sorry-ass outfits like TNR who make excuses for them.
Why the hell did Josh Marshall invite that clown to stand in for him? And for that matter, why does Talking Points Memo even link to TNR? I hope after yesterday's performance by Galloway, Marshall will think again about who it's worth being buddies with and who is best left to the rubbish bin of history.
Now let's take a closer look at the desperate rhetoric that's been marshaled against Galloway and what it signifies. The first thing to realize about the guest blogger's race-baiting comment is that it's not even an original thought. The first major figure (to my knowledge) to try this was BBC's Jeremy Paxman who, in an unprecedentedly hostile interview, asked Galloway: "Are you proud of having got rid of one of the very few black women in Parliament?"
Here's what UK's Black Information Link had to say about Paxman's crude little gambit:
This dirty campaign to discredit one of the few victories for democracy and black community empowerment during the election was demonstrated just minutes after Galloways victory had been declared in the now infamous interview with Jeremy Paxman, the BBCs main attack dog. Paxmans first question was a classic statement of racism and sexism: "Mr Galloway, are you proud of having got rid of one of the very few black women in Parliament?".
Link to article, appropriately entitled "Galloway Chosen for His Politics not Race"
Oona King may be the "daughter of an ex-pat African-American civil rights activist and Jewish mother," Marshall's guest so cloyingly put it, but by most accounts she was the weaker candidate in many respects. Perhaps the slimy bastard doesn't even realize that he's insulting King, and patronizing black people in general, by implying that her race was her primary qualification for holding office.
As for Paxton, he's known as a "tough" interviewer (something unknown on this side of the Atlantic), but his attack on Galloway was of an entirely different character than the challenging questions he poses to other politicians. Whereas other politicians are questioned with respect to their views and actions, with Galloway the great Paxman can come up with nothing better than name-calling:
Moments [after the race-baiting question], Paxman said: "I put it to you Mr Galloway that [former local government minister] Nick Raynsford had you to a T when he said you were a 'demagogue'."
But if you're going to call names, why not call names that have some meaning, some relevance, some political content. The above snippet comes from an article in ZMagazine, entitled "Ambushing Dissent", and continues thus...
As far as we are aware, Paxman has never "put it" to any leading government minister that he or she is a "demagogue", despite an abundance of evidence that media-amplified propaganda and demagoguery enabled the war on Iraq, as well as earlier attacks on Afghanistan and Serbia.
We look forward to Paxman suggesting to Tony Blair in a future interview: "I put it to you Mr Blair that George Galloway had you to a T when he said you were a 'war criminal'."
[Fat f---ing chance of that ever happening!]
Perhaps other BBC presenters and journalists will also take up the cause of due impartiality. BBC political editor Andrew Marr will then confront Blair at his next press conference: "Are you proud to have won this election on the back of outrageous lies, and an invasion-occupation in violation of the UN Charter, as suggested even by your own advisors?"
BBC Radio 4 Today's John Humphrys will no doubt ask Foreign Secretary Jack Straw: "Are you proud to have won this election at the cost of 100,000 dead people in Iraq and countless hundreds of thousands of injured, malnourished and diseased civilians?"
His colleague James Naughtie will repeatedly press Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown: "Are you proud to have won this election after funding a war that was belatedly declared illegal by Kofi Annan and that has led to a major increase in terrorism?"
Transcript and clip of Paxman's interview with George Galloway.
Paxman is not alone, in the British press, in attacking Galloway for his frank anti-establishment views, as Ambushing Dissent makes quite clear.
But returning to juvenile The New Republic-Talking Points Memo attempt at a "smack-down," it will already be clear to anyone who read Galloway's testimony that he was never a supporter of Saddam Hussain. Indeed that he was one of the lonely ones protesting him way back when Rumsfeld was selling him arms and the US was keeping mum about all his human rights abuses, etc.
The last remaining arrow in The New Republic's silly little quiver is the charge that Galloway is a "commie." Okay, I know it's hard to even say that without laughing, but it is true that Galloway is (or was) a Marxist and that he once said: "I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life."
So what? Since when is being a Marxist a crime? Oh, yeah, I forgot: ever since being a homosexual, an atheist, a hippie, an unwed mother, a peacenik, a "librul," or a Muslim have.
Maybe instead of calling Galloway a commie, those Democrats who have failed since 9/11 to stand up to Bush and say what Galloway said, should be wondering why is it takes a Marxist to do what they should have been doing all along. Why, in other words, does this "pinko" have the balls guts that they so obviously lack?
But all that aside, it might be useful to at least consider Galloway's quote in context. What he actually said was:
"Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe."
Thanks to qq1122qq, who adds that "I don't agree with Galloway, but that doesn't make him a monster," for providing the full quote. And thanks also to FleetAdmitalJ for providing an explanation of what Galloway's statement meant:
In other words, the fall of the Soviet Union created a single hegemonic state - the United States - which is now allowed to do whatever it wants around the globe unchecked. The USSR, regardless of whether you actually liked communism or not, acted as a counterweight to the US doing whatever the hell we wanted (and us to their doing whatever).
Okay, enough of the minutia.
The point of this whole diary has been to show the kind of desperate nonsense that even Democrats will stoop to when someone who really threatens the status quo comes around.
Basically, TNR, the DLC, etc., can't stand the likes of Galloway because he is a living example of the difference between themselves --let's call them the "Lieberman left"-- and the real left. And oh what a difference it makes, as we all clearly saw yesterday!
