Why is Greg Palast suddenly attacking George Galloway?

[JanMichael]

Poll question: Why is Greg Palast suddenly attacking George Galloway?

Take a look at his website.

Kinda looks like Greg has a grudge that I just don't get. Sorta looking a tad obsessed too. I wonder why?

Fact is I like Greg, interviewed him with Guy James once a long while ago, seemed pretty decent.

However I don't really understand the hostility here...Plus just about everything Palast has to say about Galloway is old hat, done to death in the UK already, over mostly too with Libel loses by the conservatives that printed the accusations.

Of course you're free to disagree with me, or with Palast, but you already knew that, right?

So why George and why now?

[Team44Car]

1. You got me on that one.

Maybe George stole his girl?

[JanMichael]

3. At least that would make sense.

:shrug:

[Melodybe]

50. WHY THE HELL ARE YOU CALLING HUGO A FASCIST!?!?!

I like Greg Palast and George Galloway, so na na na.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. Are you feeling OK? (n/t)

[Melodybe]

52. I just don't think that kind of humor is funny right now

[Thtwudbeme]

54. Yeah, these Sunday morning hangovers are a bear

aren't they.

Edited to change the title to make hangovers sound even worse.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. OK, I'd forgotten the original poll had that option

so I couldn't see why you brought Chavez like up that, after the post you replied to. It makes a little sense now.

[applegrove]

2. Read the article. Galloway is a hypocrite. He had tea with a genocidal

murderer.

We like him because he isn't afraid to talk back at the Senate. But he is still an ***hole in his own right.

[JanMichael]

4. I read it and Palast was loose with his interpretations like so many here

...do daily.

[applegrove]

7. What is loose about Galloway criticizing Saddam on the murder of

a British journalist and then having tea a few years later?

Nothing loose in that!

My god - Saddam had gassed his people.

You either think there is a place for genocide in the world - or you don't. Up or down.

And as to loose - I am a vague person. I try not to be - but there it is. We are all different.

[K-W]

10. How many times does Galloway have to admit his mistake?

Your suggestion that he supports genocide is assenine.

[applegrove]

11. My suggestion is that he supports a genocidal maniac is the point.

Galloway is in no way a perfect human being.

[K-W]

12. Well then you are a suggesting something that isnt true.

And I dont think anybody suggested he was perfect. If you are going to use a strawman at least use a convincing one.

[applegrove]

16. I called him a hypocrite. You told me I was loose.

[K-W]

17. You seem to be confusing me with another poster. EOM

[applegrove]

22. Sorry. I called him a hypocrite like Palast did - because he is one.

[pretzel4gore]

23. oh c'mon...saddam wasn't any worse then any

of the political gangsters in that area of the world.....and considering the fact we don't know much of the goings on while saddam was in power (and the fact both britain and usa were sponsors of his power for awhile....notice that saddam took over iraq in 1979, he was in a catastrophic war with iran before end of 1980; ever heard of 'iran-contra?)
the real bastards in the world are the pigs running cnnt/fox/nbc/general electric/ the big drug co's/the oil conglomerates/the entertainment mafia etc, not to mention the gopigs.....compared to them, saddam was an angel! - at least he had an excuse, and put his life on the line, unlike bush or cheney or mellon scaife limbah-humbug leslie blitzer robert novak or so on...

[lockdown]

39. He was trying to help the Iraqi people

who were suffering hugely under the vindictive sanctions in place (Madeline Albright - half a million dead Iraqi children is a price worth paying!).

He did what he felt he needed to at the time in trying to alleviate that suffering.

[0007]

64. Galloway certainly isn't a monk, but I do like him with all his

faults and all. junior's faults are hard to over look when he's trying to pick your pocket while throwing you to the wolves.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

5. Didn't He Make An Anti-Israel Comment?

I seem to recall him saying something to the effect that it was because of the U.S. support of Israel that Shrub went into Iraq in the first place.

[Malikshah]

6. bingbingbingbingbing

Oh heavens forfend.

Give that poster a seegar.

[mnhtnbb]

24. Unquestioning support of Israel

is like a 3rd rail. Any time anyone says anything negative about Israel the person is accused of being anti-Semitic. It's just possible that
everything Israeli is not in the best interests of the world, but might only be in the best interests of Israel. Not unlike a lot of other countries.

[FreedomAngel82]

46. Oh of course

It's really annoying. :eyes: Israel could have thousands of nukes and be planning to attack people and if anybody dared to speak up about it they would be called names. It's like the Israeli government are gods or something. I get really sick and tired of it myself. It's really immature and lame. And funny how we are friends and allies with the Saudi's when they have public beheadings eh?

[oblivious]

35. Many Galloway critics seem to dislike his support for Palestianian rights.

I mean they talk about his meeting with former US ally Saddam and hint about misappropriated funds, but I suspect it usually boils down to his support for the Palestinians.

Palast doesn't usually steers clear of that issue doesn't he? I wonder what his thoughts are about it.

[sadiesworld]

8. Jealousy?

I really like Palast but I've heard him (mildly) diss Michael Moore out of obvious jealousy. OTOH, Palast may be genuinely concerned about some of Galloway's more provocative comments.

Personally, I think they both have a lot to offer.

[applegrove]

9. Shades of grey people. Don't ignore the shades of grey.

[JanMichael]

27. There were ZERO shades of Gray, Grey or Cepo, in Palast's diatribe.

Ok person?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

13. I'm going with my own theory here.

Hugo Chavez slept with George Galloway's ex-wife who is Palst's secret lover.

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. Palast has lived in the UK. He may have a better handle on Galloway than

most of us in terms of seeing more of him than we have.

[mnhtnbb]

25. And maybe he's just jealous.

[Kipling]

31. I still do, and I think he's OK.

A bit egotistic but definately on the right side.

[applegrove]

15. George Galloway - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

George Galloway
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway

"Iraq

Galloway meeting with Saddam Hussein.Wikiquote has a collection of quotations by or about:
George GallowayIn the late 1970s, Galloway was a founding member of the Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq (CARDRI), which campaigned against Saddam Hussein's regime in response to its suppression of the Iraqi Communist Party. He was critical of America and Britain's later role in supporting Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War and was involved in protests at Iraq's cultural centre in London in the 1980s.

Galloway opposed the 1991 Gulf War and was critical of the effect the subsequent sanctions had on the people of Iraq. He visited Iraq several times and met senior government figures. His involvement earned him the nickname the "member for Baghdad Central". In 1994, Galloway faced some of his strongest criticism on his return from a Middle-Eastern visit during which he had met Saddam Hussein ostensibly "to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war". At the meeting, he reported the support given to Saddam by the people of the Gaza Strip and infamously ended his speech with the phrase "Sir: I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability." <7>

In the speech, Galloway clearly is addressing Saddam in support of his fight against U.N. sanctions, the policies of the U.S. and U.K. governments, and Israel ("hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds" ). When later pressed to explain why he would make such a speech, he said that it was for the benefit of the Iraqi people, collectively.

In 1999, Galloway was criticised for spending Christmas in Iraq with Tariq Aziz, the then Deputy Prime Minister. In the May 17, 2005 hearing of the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Galloway stated that he had had "many" meetings with Tariq Aziz, "more than ten", and characterized their relationship as "friendly". An archived version is available. <8>

...SNIP"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway

Galloway is not perfect.

[K-W]

18. Nobody is perfect. nt

[Redleg]

44. Wikipedia is not perfect either.

EOM

[Greyhound]

19. I'm sure Galloway does have the greedy asshole gene, everybody

at that level does and I'm sure he's a little dirty, but he seems to get quite a bit done for his constituents and has ideas and plans.

[applegrove]

20. Just so long as we don't think he is an angel. And - some people

are not greedy.

[applegrove]

21. Double post.

[Greyhound]

38. I've never met anyone, including Clinton The Great, at the national

level that wasn't. I'd really like to know if there is one, as I've obviously not met them all.

[tenshi816]

57. What has he done for his constituents?

Just curious. He's only attended 13% of the votes in Parliament this term (see http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/george_galloway/bethnal_green_and_bow#votingrecord). I'm not being a smartarse either, I'd really like to know what he has accomplished for Bethnal Green and Bow. I already know his stance on the war (as does the rest of the world) and abortion, but I don't know how well he fares in the day-to-day grind as a constituency MP, and don't know exactly where to look. You sound like you might know, and I'd be grateful if you'd share.

[Greyhound]

60. Since I don't (unfortunately) live in England, I have made my assessment

based on reports from the british press and what he says he fights for. Add that to the fact that the Labour Party kicked him out for not towing the party line regarding the decimation of Iraq, which they're too embarrassed to now admit they were wrong about.
I tried to find his actual record, but it looks like it will take longer to find any real information than I can spend now. All I found was obviously partisan articles and blogs for and against him. He does incite passion on both sides and is an excellent speaker, and maybe that is enough.
Edit: oops I forgot this link
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/george_galloway/bethnal_green_and_bow#votingrecord

[tenshi816]

61. The link to theyworkforyou.com

is the one I supplied to you in the first place, so you didn't need to give it back to me.

I'm not impressed with George Galloway's attendance in Parliament. In contrast, my MP, Ann Cryer, who also voted against the war, has attended 77% of the votes in Parliament and is a good constituency MP, by which I mean she's here working for (and available to meet with) the people who voted for her instead of swanning around in custom made suits picking up large private fees for doing speaking tours in another country.

Hard as it is for Americans to believe, not everything in life is about the United States, nor the Iraq war. Being anti-war doesn't necessarily mean someone is a good MP because it's not by any means the only issue. I'd rather have my one MP than a hundred George Galloways.

[KoKo]

26. I honestly don't know, Jan Michael... Since Galloway is a hero for going

after that RW Repug whose Dentist posted photo's of his restoration of teeth on website...and keeping him from shilling even more for the Repugs...Galloway is a HERO to me. ANYONE who speaks up against Bush/Blair and calls them out deserves some praise.

I think this might be Right Wing Disinfo trying to Trash Galloway in favor of Hitchens...but why in the world would Palast fall into that trap?

I honestly don't know the answer and I voted that way.

I like people who can shout from the ROOFTOPS that BUSHIES and EVERYTHING and ANYONE Associated with them are EVIL.

Maybe Greg Palast does have some grundge againts Galloway. I've read more of Palast than Galloway ...so what can I saw about that except that Palast has been fighting against BFEE for a long time. Maybe Galloway represents a "Young Turk" (even though he's an older guy) and Palast thinks he's getting too much attention or he had a really bad encounter with him.
I no longer care to hear anything Christopher Hitchens says about anything though. I once was a FAN of his .....I saw him go to the "DARK SIDE." So, I guess I trust Galloway more. :shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. Quite a few people in Britain haven't liked Galloway since the War on Want

episode, where he had to pay back money to the charity he had taken out in expenses (he was its general secretary). The charity, which had been quite large, and well regarded (and grew a great deal during his time there) actually turned out to be insolvent. That, and the Mariam Appeal affair (where the full books were sent abroad, and so haven't be examined by any outsiders) are like red rags to a bull for an investigative financial journalist like Palast. Galloway's brownnosing of Saddam after 1990 turns a lot of people off too.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4539429.stm

[julianer]

29. Of course people

who are deliberately demonised are often regarded as demons.

There is a large demo coming up. Galloway made a big impact in the Senate hearings and people are paying attention. Quick wheel out the old smears!!

You will notice that Palast doesn't actually make any allegations - he offers innuendo instead.

If Palast or anyone else had any details about Galloway's supposed corruption or support for dictators they would have thrust it before us by now. They have no evidence so the best thing to do is repeat the old smears in a way that isn't actionable.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. Palast is fairly specific in his allegations

both about support for Saddam, and financial.

And when you were challenged on your arse-licking praise of the dictator, why did you prevaricate and obfuscate by saying the worshipful words were for the Iraqi people, not Saddam. In fact, your words were very specific: "Your Excellency, … 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 have to say, Mr. Galloway, you are a charitable man with a big heart. But the charity is for whom? You founded something called the Mariam Appeal for Iraqis suffering under UN sanction. You raised cash on your solemn promise that, "The balance after Mariam’s hospital bills have been paid will be sent as medicine and medical supplies to the children she had to leave behind." But little of the money seems to have gone there, isn't that correct, Mr. Galloway? It seems that nearly a million dollars can't be accounted for. And the diversion of most of the money was, you said, for "emergency" purposes. One of those emergencies was the payment to your wife -- isn't that correct, Mr. Galloway?

And the source of nearly half a million dollars of that money, Honorable Sir, came from a trader in the corrupt Oil-for-Food program. The payment was equal to the profits earned by this oil trader who was blessed with discount oil from Saddam. Is that correct?

So if we add it up, Mr. Galloway, while you were railing about medicines denied Iraqis by Messrs. Bush and Blair, you were taking money skimmed from the program earmarked to pay for those medicines. And other moneys donated for medicine for Iraqis you and your group also skimmed off for "legitimate expenses" of yours, is that correct?

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=457&row=0

[tsuki]

33. Isn't that what Rupert had to pay the big bucks for?

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. Not as far as I know

Galloway won damages from The Times (Murdoch owned) when Julie Burchill accuesed him of breaking into a woman's house and stealing her knickers (it was another MP). He got damages from the Christian Science Monitor and Daily Telegraph when they claimed he'd been paid by Saddam. But he acknowledged, when talking to the US Senate, that Zureikat may well have paid kickbacks to the Iraqis to get oil-for-food contracts; he just said that where the donors to the Miriam Appeal got the money wasn't under his control. Palast is saying some of the appeal money went to Galloway's wife - which, as far as I know, has not been the subject of any law action. Zureikat now has controls of the appeal's records.

[tsuki]

37. Thanks.

[julianer]

58. Galloway's wife's income

from the Appeal was investigated by the Charities Commission and found to be above board.

There is a full rebuttal here:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2005/09/palasts-palimpsest.html

I think I'm going to post this as a thread in its own right.

[pox americana]

34. Shades of Joe McCarthy.

Palast may be a whizbang reporter but this is a smear.

[FreedomAngel82]

47. I think so too

I wonder what's up. Maybe Palast doesn't like Galloway and doesn't want to get smeared himself for supporting him because of some other reasons mentioned in this thread. :shrug:

[Mairead]

32. If those charges are known to be rubbish, tell Palast. See what he says.

My take on it was that Palast discovered that Galloway has clay feet. If that's not so, I'd think he'd want to know, don't you?

[MH1]

40. Could it be that Palast is right?

I'm kind of amazed after reading the entire thread that no one has discussed Galloway's anti-choice stance.

So let's see what we have:
* a little too friendly with an evil dictator
* suspect financial dealings
* implied that he supported the fatwa on Salman Rushdie
* wants to impose his religious beliefs regarding abortion and euthanasia, on everyone in his country.

BUT he laid a great smackdown on Norm Coleman, and we loved it! Plus, he is very anti-Iraq war.

So... a mixed bag. I'm still keeping an open mind. I don't think we should get mad at Palast for suggesting that we look at the entire package before swooning for the guy. I also think that we can agree with Galloway's arguments against the Iraq war without declaring him a saint of the progressive movement.

(btw if Palast's allegations are supported by the facts and Galloway has not since repudiated those attitudes, I don't see why they should be considered "old hat.")

[FreedomAngel82]

48. There are some good points

On his anti-choice is that his personal view in his personal life or with his politics? With me I am pro-life personally but I'm also pro-choice because of freewill and all that. I think what's important is to look at Galloway but he is mostly now fighting the Iraq war. If he can edcuate some people with what Bush has done then I'm all for that.

[MH1]

53. Anti-choice appears to be political.

From the linked article:

During his debate with Salman Rushdie at the recent Edinburgh TV Festival, someone asked George Galloway if television should broadcast an adaptation of Rushdie's novel, "Satanic Verses." According to Rushdie, Galloway replied, "If you don't respect religion, you have to suffer the consequences."

Holy Jesus! This was, unmistakably, an endorsement of the death-sentence fatwa issued against Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini.

Add this endorsement of killing for God to Galloway's notorious opposition in Parliament to a woman's right to choose abortion, and you get yourself a British Pat Robertson.

Sounds like Galloway thinks religious law should trump secular laws and individual rights. That would certainly be a troubling position.

Although, it has been mentioned in this thread that these allegations are "ten years old." But then again, I haven't seen a link posted showing that Galloway has changed his position and started supporting abortion rights and opposing the death penalty. (If anyone has credible sources please post!)

[JanMichael]

59. Another thread links a story that explains your query.

It linked this rebuttal of Palast's smears.

3. The charge that Galloway has a 'record' of opposing a woman's right to choose in parliament:

Add this endorsement of killing for God to Galloway's notorious opposition in Parliament to a woman's right to choose abortion, and you get yourself a British Pat Robertson.

The first thing to make clear is that Galloway has not voted in parliament on a woman's right to choose. An investigative journalist might have been able to find this out straightforwardly enough, by checking his voting record. (Incidentally, would a 'British Pat Robertson' vote in favour of extending gay rights or denounce the bigoted Keep the Clause campaign ran by Scottish tycoon and union-buster Brian Souter? Or break with Cardinal Winning, someone he had been friends with, over the latter's bigoted outbursts against gays?) Galloway has, however, explained that "I am not opposed to a woman's right to choose". Again, it might well have occurred to you that saying "I am not opposed to a woman's right to choose" is not quite the same thing as uttering "deadly anti-abortion threats".

Also a Guardian Politics rundown of important votes.

[U4ikLefty]

41. I am questioning Palast's motives more & more lately.

It seems like he wants to pormote himself over the interests of the left. I guess he'll tear apart Sean Penn & Jesse Jackson for meeting with Saddam in his next rant/article.

[jfern]

42. Greg Palast is right

Galloway is definitely very right on the crucial issue of the war, but he isn't right on some other things.

[U4ikLefty]

45. Name them. Not 10 years ago, but his positions TODAY.

I am curious if you have anything NEW.

[FreedomAngel82]

43. I have no idea

I didn't know anything was going on. I just went to the site today to catch up and saw. :shrug: Greg is probably one of the only reporters I trust now days. Him and Bob Firtakis.

[MH1]

49. Palast: "Galloway = TANG memos"

At least that's what I came away with, after reading everything more thoroughly this morning.

Palast seems to think the Republicans are steering the Left to rally behind Galloway, because then the repugs will be able to point out his past positions and statements that will be repugnant to moderates, and thus turn moderates against the Left ("if this is the Left, I want no part of it").

In this interpretation it matters not whether Galloway still holds those attitudes that will turn people away from the left. It only matters whether the republicans can use his past actions to discredit him, and by association, the Left or at least the anti-war movement.

[PATRICK]

56. Simple perspective

Palast is BBC and Galloway has quite a history over there. Even stories about "over there" that bolster Palast's critiques have little influence against the direct confrontation over select set of issues here.

One has to dig to judge Palast's claims unless Palast is a bigger unadulterated hero as Galloway for starved American progressives.

Apparently galloway is naturally and well practiced in being extremely outspoken and decisive. One would not like to argue about your favorite breakfast cereal or music group with him.

Considering our skew and the temptation to be fans of such champions our first instinct is to question the accusation and whether to make allowances for one or the other. I think his stance is to distrust moral issues and attacks on religion because of the corporatist/state attack on world culture. He is looking at the bigger picture where individuals and even his own actions are defined by this view which is too energetic not to march into self-contradiction.

But Palast is wrong here if he thinks Galloway has been given only starry eyed treatment. As his politics has no local effect here one can set aside questions that would only serve to blunt his proper Iraq message. Yes, that is why the GOP invited him over. But the GOP seems very incompetent and lazy today thinking every tiger is in the cage. In sum, the opinion mattered little and was obviously more Galloway than a
useful symbol of European enmity toward the US. The taints and the socialism withered in the heat and our MSM and GOP were just as glad that he go away and be forgotten.

This is very belated from Palast so I wonder if something new is being done here to honor Galloway or he is being obnoxious in non-progressive ways over in Britain? The timing is way late unless someone just had a heated debate over there.

Incidentally the criticism of the "left" should be better defined since we are aware of the persons and groups that tend toward what Palast gripes about in a lot of areas. At DU it is the innocent enthusiasm for
the first blush, for hope, and it IS followed by deep second looks without destroying that hope, not continued myopia(we hope).

This is the same Palast that uncritically used Huey Long as an exemplar of a populist champion without going further. Palast himself therefore is a zealous outspoken champion who has the same clay in his shoes as the rest of us.

On edit. I guess it is because of podium sharing at the upcoming peace rally.

[Taxloss]

63. Good post.

"his politics has no local effect here" - it has some very worrying local effects here. Plus, I come from a family that has more than 30 years' time in the charity sector; what Galloway did at War on Want was deeply troubling, and I think unforgiveable.

[bloom]

62. While I admire Palast for his investigative reporting

I don't always agree with his opinions.

Just like Galloway did such a great job at the Senate hearings - chances are he's not perfect either.

I don't expect to agree with people on everything - or to think they are all perfect - but it is a nuisance for Palast to be dissing Galloway for no good reason that I can see.