Crow Violation

Location: People's Republic of Madison, Wisconsin

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Galloway's Historical Fiction

Madison blogger Uncle Jimbo was just about the only media personality who got to ask George Galloway a serious question during Galloway's recent visit to the Mad City. You can read (some of?) the transcript of the interview here.

The striking thing about the interview is how Galloway morphs to fit his audience. When speaking in the Arab world, he can compare the liberation of Iraq to a rape, but in the US, he tries to tell us that he's so very concerned about the possibility of creating new terrorists with our invasion. Likewise, after his long career of supporting communist dictatorships, he tries to hide it from his American audience:

UJ: (prior to clip was asking if his words to Mrs. Thatcher were related to his sadness that his team lost in Afghanistan, and how our support for the mujahideen was global chess against the Soviets, due to the policy of Realpolitik) ...and us playing Realpolitik. We supported them

GG: I've never loved the Soviet Union. You're believing all the..

UJ: Really, because I thought there was a quote that you were sad when the Soviet Union died, I mean I do fact check a little

GG: Everything that's written is a quote (laughter) so it's true, for goodness sakes,

Ebo: Must be true

GG: No what I said was, the collapse of the Soviet Union leaving a single superpower in the world, with no equilibrium in the world is the reason that the world is in the chaotic state that it is in today. That when there were more than one, there were limits to what people could do.

Leave aside Galloway's horrible fear that the collapse of the Soviet Union has given the good an unfair advantage over the evil. Leave aside Galloway's slimy attempt to throw doubt on his pro-Soviet quotes, without having to issue a solid denial. The point here is that Galloway is trying to rewrite history, replacing his earlier stated admiration for communist dictatorships with a distraction about the balance of power. Uncle Jimbo gives him a pass on that, but I don't. Let's take a look at the original quotation that Galloway is now trying to rewrite:

"I am on the anti-imperialist left." The Stalinist left? "I wouldn't define it that way because of the pejoratives loaded around it; that would be making a rod for your own back. If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. 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."

Remember the relevant question here: Is Galloway anti-war and anti-imperialist, or his he just anti-American and pro-dictator? Here, he clearly stated that he supported the Soviet Union. After that, he threw in some guff about opposing American military adventures. But it's obviously not "rampaging" per se that Galloway opposes. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, he refused to condemn Brezhnev. When Saddam was slaughtering the shiites, Galloway condemned the shiites. When it comes to Fidel Castro:

Galloway regards Fidel Castro's Cuba as "a remarkable society" and "a model for the world." He has said Castro is "not a dictator, not at all", and described him as "the greatest man I have met."

So when Galloway claims that he was just concerned about balance of power, I say, "bullshit".

Blair: Worse than bin Laden?

With so many egregious distortions coming out of Galloway, it's hard to choose only a few. But this one is noteworthy:

I'm not speaking for Bin Laden, I'm not asking us to negotiate with Bin Laden.

What Galloway has actually done is much worse than asking us to negotiate. He tried to explain away the 9/11 attacks as being not nearly as bad as the sanctions on Saddam (sanctions that were in place to prevent Saddam from getting WMD.) After 9/11, he has condemned our attempts to drive bin Laden's Taliban buddies from power. He now condemns Canada for having peacekeepers in Afghanistan, complaining that Canada's soldiers and not "neutral" between the Taliban terrorists and the victims of terrorism.

Galloway can toss out an occasional pro forma denunciation of bin Laden, but the words he utters and the policies he demands are of invaluable aid to the world's most famous terrorist.

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

More Treasonous George Quotes

Tonight Christopher Hitchens will be debating George Galloway. In preparation, Hitchens has collected even more awful quotes from Galloway.

Galloway In His Own words

I had posted several of these before, but a few are worth extra commentary.

"Your Excellency, Mr President. I greet you in the
name of the many thousands of people in Britain who stood against the
tide and opposed the war and aggression against Iraq and continue to
oppose the war by economic means which is [sic] aimed to strangle the
life out of the great people of Iraq... I greet you too, in the name of the
Palestinian people... I thought the President would appreciate to know that even today, three years
after the war, I still meet families who are calling their newborn sons Saddam. I salute your
courage, your strength your indefatigability.
And if I want you to know that we are with you until
victory, until victory until Jerusalem!"

Remember, Galloway claims that he was only saluting the Iraqi people, not Saddam himself. With this more extensive quote, that fiction cannot be maintained. The sentence prior to the salute is addressed directly at Saddam. Galloway clearly was saluting Saddam personally.

Galloway's peacenik backers might also want to check out the last sentence of that quote. Do they share Galloway's determination to wipe Israel off the map?

I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet
Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life

Actually, that one doesn't require any commentary...

Galloway on the London bus bombings:
Now just because I have to say we utterly
condemn the attacks on innocent people in
London both of the 7th of July and two weeks
later. These were attacks on ordinary working
people. They were not punishing the guilty. They
were punishing the innocent for the crimes of the
guilty. And there were no guilty on the London buses. They don't travel on buses.

Haw Haw Galloway has repeated said that "the guilty ones" are the leaders of the countries that liberated Iraq. In other words, if the London bombers had blown up Tony Blair, Galloway would have had no problem with it.

Galloway on On a recent TV adaptation of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses:
You have to be aware if you
do [offend people's beliefs] you will get blowback. You should do it very carefully, especially if
you are a public service broadcaster.

That one is noteworthy because Galloway's Madison speech is sponsored in part by the Havens Center at the University of Wisconsin. Havens has deflected all criticism by insisting that it just loves freedom of speech so much. For Havens, that means collecting the looniest leftwing academics in sight. And speech for anyone else? Not so much, apparently. Galloway suggests that if you get death threats from Muslims, it's just blowback for the offense you've given. That's the kind of "freedom of speech" that Havens is supporting when they sponsor Galloway.

Thursday, September 01, 2005

Whitewashing a Red Traitor

On September 18th, Madison will host not one, but two, apostles of treason. Hanoi Jane Fonda will be the warmup act for George Galloway, who has become a darling of the "anti-war" movement. At least one Wisconsin legislator has detected Galloway's unsavory scent, and so a campaign of sanitization must commence immediately. John Nichols offers his cleaning services in the Capital Times

To be sure, Fonda and Galloway have been critics of the Bush administration's decision to invade and occupy Iraq, and no doubt they will express their views when they appear on campus.

But is voicing a difference of opinion with George Bush "hate speech"?

Is mentioning the fact that the excuses Bush made for going to war have been discredited "hate speech"?

Is noting that polls show a majority of Iraqis want the occupation of their country to end "hate speech"?

Is suggesting that the best way to "support the troops" might be to bring them home really "hate speech"?

Hate speech? What hate speech? For anyone who has been paying attention to Galloway, that is a silly question. Galloway has shown over and over that he doesn't just have a "difference of opinion" over Iraq. In fact, he hates the US and Britain, and glorifies our genocidal enemies.

Take the Battle of Fallujah, for instance. In that city several civilian contractors, who were in Iraq to help rebuild the country, were killed, mutilated, and hung from a bridge. The creatures who committed this atrocity were at the same time terrorizing the citizens of Fallujah, sometimes threatening to murder women who failed to wear headscarfs. Several months(!) later American soldiers attacked cleaned out Fallujah. Galloway was murderously angry - not at the holy headchoppers, of course, but at the Americans and their allies:

Fallujah is a Guernica, Falluaja is a Stalingrad, and Iraq is in flames as a result of the actions of these criminals. Not the resistance, not anybody else but these criminals who invaded and fell like wolves upon the people of Iraq.

Galloway has this poetic description of the people trying to kill his country's soldiers:

These poor Iraqis - ragged people, with their sandals, with their Kalashnikovs, with the lightest and most basic of weapons - are writing the names of their cities and towns in the stars, with 145 military operations every day, which has made the country ungovernable.

We don't know who they are, we don't know their names, we never saw their faces, they don't put up photographs of their martyrs, we don't know the names of their leaders.

Galloway's love for the Iraqi people is so great that he can't stand the thought that American and British "criminals" would eliminate Saddam's killing fields, hand out billions in aid, allow the greatest freedom of press in Iraqi history, and establish the country's first democratic institutions. But if he loves the Iraqi people, then he must hate the dictator who kept them under his boot, right? Well, not so much. Galloway was at the very least a buddy of Saddam's, and heaped praise on the old butcher:

Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability.

Galloway has since tried to claim that he was talking about about the Iraqi people. If so, he is certainly treating Saddam as the personification of the Iraqi people. In fairness, Galloway says he has criticized Saddam. What could Saddam have done to earn Galloway's wrath? Why, he helped contain a threat to American security, of course. Nothing could excuse that!

...I was condemning Saddam Hussein when he was backed by the anti-communist West in his homicidal war against Iran.

Lately, this new Lord Haw Haw has been even more explicit in his attempts to incite jihad against the Western world. Recently on Syrian TV, he compared the liberation of Baghdad with a rape:

Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners - Jerusalem and Baghdad. The foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will. The daughters are crying for help, and the Arab world is silent. And some of them are collaborating with the rape of these two beautiful Arab daughters.

What hate speech? wonders John Nichols.

Galloway does not just have a "difference of opinion". His country is at war, and he is doing his damndest to make sure that the other side wins. No matter how bloodthirsty our enemies, Galloway can excuse them - just because they are killing his countrymen.

it can be said, truly said, that the Iraqi resistance is not just defending Iraq. They are defending all the Arabs, and they are defending all the people of the world from American hegemony.


It's not the Muslims who are the terrorists. The biggest terrorists are Bush, and Blair, and Berlusconi, and Aznar, but it is definitely not a clash of civilizations. George Bush doesn't have any civilization, he doesn't represent any civilization. We believe in the Prophets, peace be upon them. He believes in the profits, and how to get a piece of them.

George Galloway is coming to Madison, and his sure to get a warm welcome from the "anti-war" crowd. They will claim that he is merely a humanitarian who wants peace, that he really does support the troops in his own way. But they can't make those claims honestly.