Palast anti-Galloway story is rebutted

[julianer]

This is from a left wing UK site and gives a detailed rebuttal of the allegations made by Greg Palast against George Galloway:

<snip>

Greg Palast is, without a doubt, a brilliant investigative journalist. The skill with which he has exposed corporate malfeasance, Florida vote-rigging and New Labour's sucking up to the rich has been a joy to read. Witty and informative, hated by the Right, he's a guy to take seriously. Or so I had thought.

Here, Palast goes off on one about Galloway, citing from the usual catalogue of charges and slanders from the liberal warmongers and miniscule sectarian grouplets. Like I say, Palast is - whatever else he is not - an investigative journalist. So, judge for yourself why he gets it so profoundly wrong on the following three accounts.

....

Greg Palast is a brilliant investigative journalist. Yet he cannot in this case bring himself to read his own sources, check his own claims, back up his own assertions. It is a remarkable slither into a journalistic swamp. The Beautiful Soul leftism manifest there is largely a result of weakness, not strength. Ideologically, what it represents is capitulation to the Right

</snip>

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

The discussion following should be as much about what has happened to Palast as with the rights and wrongs of Galloway, IMO.

[PATRICK]

1. Invitation to infighting

Well, on our less exalted plane we know enough to understand especially when two strong personalities collide at the podium. Both and neither have contributed to real action against the RW, same as any other progressive, small or large.

It's a waste of time and something is at stake here only if the infighting gets more vicious.

[julianer]

2. I'm sorry

I don't follow.

What counts as 'real action' in your book?

And I don't think this is about infighting. This is about a renewal of the old, unfounded smears against Galloway, but this time supposedly coming from the left.

We need to stop the infighting by nailing the smears and the smearers.

[Jim Sagle]

5. Palast RRRRRAWWWWKSSSSS!!!!!!!!

[julianer]

8. You read the rebuttal then?

He may rock your world but it seems he fails to check sources.

[lockdown]

9. I don't follow either

Like rebutting Palast's smears is enabling the neocons or something.. ?

I think those who feel Palast's nose is just out of joint because of ego and he's jealous of Galloway are probably right! Can't see why else he'd fall for spouting such crap, not like he isn't a quality journalist normally.

[jmatthan]

20. Thank you

You just said what I have been shouting in another thread!!

[tocqueville]

3. check wikipedia and build your own opinion

In an interview with the Guardian <7>, Galloway outlined his political views in relation to the Soviet Union:

"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." <6>

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." When there was a coup in Pakistan, he wrote, "In poor third world countries like Pakistan, politics is too important to be left to petty squabbling politicians. Pakistan is always on the brink of breaking apart into its widely disparate components. Only the armed forces can really be counted on to hold such a country together ... Democracy is a means, not an end in itself".

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

[Mairead]

6. On political subjects, Wikipedia is not a disinterested source.

So only read wiki on such subjects if you want a hit of propaganda. The kind you get will vary according to which side was the most ruthless; see, for opposite examples of ideologues holding out against impartiality, the entries for 'libertarianism' and 'anarchism'.

[tocqueville]

14. Wikipedia presents a lot of different sources

It's more the links at the botom of the page that are interesting. What did he say or not say in different interviews.

[julianer]

7. So if you can't nail him as corrupt

you might as well attack him for his opinions?

Be fair - he is being wrongly attacked for corruption. It is time to stand with him not sidle away because you disagree with him on other things.

[tocqueville]

13. I don't think he is corrupted

what I just see is often a lot of empty rethorics. It's one thing of criticizing the war (Vietnam, Iraq, Yougoslavia or whatever) and taking sides for the other part. The fact that a lot of criticism can be said about the US policies about Cuba don't turn Castro into an angel. Or Chavez.

[jmatthan]

21. But it may turn Americans into capitalistic pigs

eom

[pretzel4gore]

4. for chrissake they're gonna confirm this roberts as sukk court chief!

NOLA exposed the busheviks to the country as nothing else, and here they are putting a punk as head of the supreme court...as if the supreme court needs more contempt then it already has..
there's a coup d'etat going on, folks.....

[smartvoter]

10. What I don't understand about any of this is why we need Galloway

to be perfect on all fronts to begin with. Does he have to share our view of everything to be right about the war or to defend himself vigorously when the pro-war crowd went after him?

One of the biggest flaws we tend to have out here at DU (myself included) is to inflate everyone who agrees with us on an issue and then to have all this infighting when we find out they may not be in lockstep with our own agendas and viewpoints.

When I first saw Galloway in his now infamous smackdown, I was thrilled to see him punch back. It's something many of us are desperate to see more of from the Dems and I, like so many, was starved for it and ate it up with a big smile on my face. Doesn't mean I want to hang out with the guy or become an activist for him. He stood up to bullies. This is shamefully rare and undeniably admirable, but it doesn't make him a saint.

Setting aside arguments about what is true and what is smear, how would Galloway liking Castro, for example, invalidate his criticism of cronyism and Halliburton in Iraq? Is the world really that black and white? Absolutes and the absence of gray in all matters is the biggest flaw the on the other side of the fence -- it's how the base is so easily manipulated by turning everything, even entirely inappropriate items and scenarios, into pro-god or anti-god, often in bizarre twists that run opposite of their faith, to boot. Its what keeps them as sheeple.

It is difficult to see how we are served by falling into traps of absolutes.

[Kralizec]

12. I couldn't agree with you more. This is the main reason that I

have self-censored myself, to a extraordinary amount, here on DU. I cherish it as a place where topics I am interested in are discussed by people much closer to my kind of thinking than many other people I know. But you hit it right on the bullseye. Each person's belief is their own. If something strays from the 'popular DU' thought, the chances of being 'researched to death' rises substantially.

edit: grammar

[FreedomAngel82]

17. Yes

I could care less what someone's personal views are. This whole thing with Galloway is to show how Bush lied and manipulated war for oil and what many people have been saying since the beginning was true. I find it very interesting and confusing on Palast's latest article.

[KoKo]

15. Well said, "smartvoter."

Is the world really that black and white? Absolutes and the absence of gray in all matters is the biggest flaw the on the other side of the fence -- it's how the base is so easily manipulated by turning everything, even entirely inappropriate items and scenarios, into pro-god or anti-god, often in bizarre twists that run opposite of their faith, to boot. Its what keeps them as sheeple.

But, don't talk to me about Bill Clinton and what he's doing these days. :D I'm having a hard time figuring that one out.

Agree with your comments about Galloway though.

[0007]

22. You're so right.

[Thtwudbeme]

11. Pretty amazing isn't it? It's obviously because of the Protests next week.

Talk about being opportunistic.

[Proud_Lefty]

16. Palast's Article Smells Foul

Gallaway stands up to the neo-cons the exact way we want all our leaders to. Why won't our leaders stand up? Because spins, lies and skeletons are dug up and woven to attack and discredit them and we Americans actually believe it. Every single time anyone speaks the truth, they are a victim to this ruthless tactic. The fact that this article came from Palast is shocking, and I'm more curious about his reasoning for allowing his name to be put on Rove's smear attack than what he actually writes.

Gallaway is the current messenger of truth who's being attacked. Nothing new here. Just surprised people don't expect it.

[tedzbear]

19. Rove slipped $2 million into Palast's Swiss bank account...

Rove used the Katrina slush fund to pay him off.


:think:

[Proud_Lefty]

24. That 'splains it perfectly

Nothing else makes sense.

[U4ikLefty]

18. bump

[dogday]

23. Galloway blew those windbag Senators away

he blew them all away and I will never forget it...