Greg Palast's perspective's on George Galloway, who is against abortion

(Quickly written-- please pardon errors.)

Like Greg Palast, I too have been bothered by factors in Galloway's character, past actions, and statements.

Unlike Palast however, I have yet to thoroughly make up my mind about Galloway's contribution to the anti-war cause (although I sense that it is substantial).

Are his religious beliefs adding to the sorrow of the world, or are they a wedge toward bringing others of all beliefs to the anti-war table? I suspect that Muslims in particular can respect a person of deep faith even if he is an apostate to their faith. I believe that Galloway, unlike Bush and many others (including many leaders of the western Churches), is no hypocrite about his religious convictions.

Like many influential leaders in the world today, Galloway exhibits a narcissistic personality that hews to its own convictions irregardless of arising inconsistencies. Perhaps the biggest inconsistency is Galloway's strict Christian beliefs which would hardly reconcile with the stricter beliefs of many of his Muslim supporters.

Rather than being a decided detraction, Galloway's sincere beliefs (as opposed to the questionable religious circumspection of the so-called American Religious Right) has given him the fervor and nimbleness to denounce the hypocrisies of the Bush and Blair "War on Terror" with an indignation that has only been surpassed by the meek witness to Truth, Cindy Sheehan.
In Galloway's recent debate with the neo-con apologist Christopher Hitchens, Galloway readily acceded that he had a different character and strategy than she.

Referring to that recent debate, I was surprised that Hitchens only feebly raised the spectre of Galloway's alleged enrichment by his charity the Miriam Appeal, although Palast raises it more strongly here. Does Palast have a point? Perhaps. The Miriam Appeal was officially cleared of improprieties.

Palast seems to err by jumping to conclusions about Galloway. Does Galloway's opposition to abortion ipso facto make him a Pat Robertson (who called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez)? A defender of terrorists that bomb abortion clinics?

Nothing that I have heard from Galloway leads me to think that he endorses terrorism of any sort. To say that he would strikes me as slanderous. As for Galloway's unfortunate "salute" of Saddam Hussein-- as much is made of it as the argument that Cindy Sheehan had her "opportunities" to tete-a-tete with Bush. Was Galloway's "salute" a polite gesture that has been taken out of context? We know that by the facts that Bush did not engage in any real conversation with Sheehan about the death of her son. Galloway may be the only one to know what he meant when he "saluted" Hussein and I am sure he probably explains it in his book Mr. Galloway Goes To Washington (I've yet to read it).

More than salute Hussein-- I have heard him consistently disavow Hussein's brutal terror against his own people, even as he reminds us that the imperial powers initially abetted Hussein with more than words--they abetted Hussein with weapons of mass destruction.

Does Galloway endorse a fatwa against Salmon Rushdie? I would like his unequivocal answer to that question, especially in light of his own publications which have offended many Muslims. Maybe he will speak about it Wednesday when he comes to San Francisco.

Palast's most surprising charge against Galloway is that he was "chosen" by the Republicans as a way to detract from the mounting public popularity for Cindy Sheehan. Galloway has said on numerous occasions that he chose by his own volition to invite himself to Washington to rebut the slander against him. Still, it is hard to not believe that Republican strategists hoped (and hope) to capitalize off of Galloway's erratic, eccentric, and seemingly self-serving ways.

If Palast is right, he yet also admits that in round one, "the punching bag punched back." Rather than appear as a "gross cartoon," Galloway turned out to be an individual force much more resilient and indefatigable than his detractors or users could want. Without doubt, Galloway brought a candidness and righteous indignation to Washington that had been almost utterly lacking from Democrats.

Should the anti-war movement embrace George Galloway? I would argue that he is not the first, last, or best "love-child" of the Progressive Left in America. He is but one individual making a difference, and a courageous individual at that. In Britain, where his Respect Party galvanized many under an anti-war umbrella, Galloway has tangibly shown how the the sum of the anti-war movement is much more than its individual constituents.

To the extent that his narcissism gets the better of him, or to the extent that he comes to believe that he defines and is the movement that endorsed him-- his support will naturally crumble and he will be just another entertaining footnote to history. An anti-war movement that embraces diversity of viewpoints (political, moral, and religious) is key to unseating the immoral and dangerous administration that is wreaking havoc at home and abroad. This anti-war movement must be broader than the individuals that make it up-- and it must be broad in its tolerance for the human characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses of its individuals.

To artificially elevate Galloway is to misrepresent the cause which should be universal. To submerge him is to already concede that the enemies of the anti-war movement can divide and conquer.

As brilliant and seemingly righteous as Galloway is, there are plenty of questions the anti-war movement should continue to ask about him and its other leading lights. Perhaps the key questions: "What can Galloway, the individual, teach us about taking the world as it is, and remolding it into a world that is more tolerant and just?" Also, "At what point should the individual recognize the dangers that are inherent to power, even in just causes, and what is she or he to do about it?"

I hope Mr. Galloway will speak as candidly about himself as he does about his war-promoting foes when he visits San Francisco this Wednesday. Galloway is a charismatic individual who we should give a fair listening to. Let us hope that nothing is obscured about his record or his contribution to ending the unjustified and costly mayhem that Bush engendered in Iraq.


Links for more info:

Greg Palast:
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=460&row=0
George Galloway's website:
http://www.mrgallowaygoestowashington.com/
San Francisco hosts george Galloway Event:
http://www.indybay.org/calendar/event_display_detail.php?event_id=7455&day=21&month=9&year=2005
Wikipedia article on George Galloway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway
Respect Party
http://respectcoalition.org/
Galloway-Hitchens debate Video
http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2005/sept/video/grapple.rm
Galloway-Hitchens debate mp3:
http://www.archive.org/download/grapple-in-the-big-apple/grapple-in-the-big-apple_64kb.mp3
For George Galloway:
http://www.randomhouse.com/features/pronar/

See:

http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=14129

You say hat the anti-war movement should respect a diversity of viewpoints. How come indybay editors censored my post about Galloway's noxious comments about S. Rushdie? http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1766418.php

I have made up my mind up Galloway he's a noxious stalinst turd.

Et Tu, Greg Palast?

By GEORGE GALLOWAY

Until a couple of days ago I hadn't heard of Greg Palast in years, the man who claims to have been pursuing me with questions for two months. He has never phoned, written, emailed or made any other contact with me, which is curiously reminiscent of the behavior of the US Senate committee. Having now forced myself to look at his pernicious writing, it seems like the deranged ramblings you might expect to find pushed out from under the door of a locked ward. He claims to be a journalist. He clearly doesn't get much work.

Palast conflates meetings, truths and half-truths, statements taken out of context to produce a toxic smear which would be actionable in the country he claims to work in, my country. How many times do I have to respond to the ravings of guttersnipes? I met Saddam twice, the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld. The difference is that I wasn't trying to sell him weapons and guidance systems. The first, and infamous time, my words were taken out of context. The second, where Saddam revealed his favorite confectionery, I was trying to persuade him to let the weapons' inspectors back in. A vain mission, of course, as the US and UK had already decided to illegally go to war whatever he did.

The Mariam Appeal, which Palast drags in to allege I benefited financially from its work, was not a charity. It was a political campaign. Its primary function was not to provide medicines for Iraqi children, although we did, but to highlight the political conditions which were killing them. Sanctions! The largest donor was the ruler of the UAE (who gave approximately £500,000), followed by Fawaz Zureikat's £375,000, and then the now king of Saudi Arabia (a regime I loath) with £150,000. The donations of these three represented 99% of the campaign's total income. These donors were prominently identified at the time, there was no attempt to hide them, as this palooka claims. None of them have complained the money was ill-spent. Palast might take the view that finance should not be taken from such sources. Sorry, but needs must.

Among the works undertaken by the appeal was a daily newsletter on sanctions, a sanctions-busting flight into Baghdad, the Big Ben to Baghdad trip in a red London bus, countless meetings and conferences, posters and flyers, the projection of an anti-war slogan on the House of Commons, the first time that had ever been done -- and the facilitating of trips to Iraq by dozens of journalists, many of whom sat in on my meetings with Tariq Aziz. And virtually all of whom were conducted around Baghdad by Fawaz Zureikat, openly introduced as the Mariam Appeal's chairman, as well as a businessman trading with Iraq. We brought Mariam Hamza to Britain for treatment -- immodestly, but factually, I claim that we saved her life -- where she remained for half a year, sent back cured. I could go on and on but my enemies would surely claim I was blowing my own trumpet.

But what I will not tolerate -- and will sue in any territory where it is possible to do so -- is the lie that I personally benefited financially from the campaign. The Charity Commission inquiry Palast refers to was occasioned by a referral from Tony Blair's Attorney General. The commission are in possession of every receipt of funds and every cheque issues or bank transfer ever made. They satisfied that there was no malfeasance and closed the case without further action, no doubt to the disappointment of Mr Blair's Attorney General. Charities in Britain cannot campaign politically, which was the prime function of the appeal and in their judgment the commission said that the operation should have been split in two, one arm of which, the one which provided the physical aid, should have registered as a charity. Well, sorry, but that's poppycock.

The stumblebum then drags in Hitchens -- perhaps it's two bums finding mutual support -- a man I recently debated in New York. For what seems like the ten-thousandth time let me try to finally nail the canard that I benefited through the oil-for-food programme, an allegation at the time of writing which has netted me at least $4 million in libel damages and costs. Of course, when I talked with Tariq Aziz, I talked about the programme, but only in respect of the effects it was having on Iraq. I did not request or receive oil vouchers. I did not benefit financially. Not by one thin dime! I said voluntarily and on pain of prosecution under oath to the US Senate committee -- another body which doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good smear -- and I say it again. If I had been guilty of what Palast alleges I'd be sitting not in the House of Commons but a prison cell! Let that be an end to it because I'm sure the public is even more tired and bemused than I am.

Crawl back under your rock, Mr Palast!

. . . Palast is unhappy because Galloway is drowning out his spotlight

[Next Saturday, September 24, Cindy Sheehan and I will be speaking at the Operation Ceasefire gathering in Washington DC, sponsored by the DC Anti-War Network and United for Peace and Justice. Please join us. Hopefully, our voices won't be drowned out by George Galloway's antics.]

at least he has Cindy Sheehan with him to draw some people

curious that this article by Palast deletes his embarassing, exploitation of Casey Sheehan's death in an earlier one, an exploitation designed to create the false impression that Casey Sheehan was killed by a Jihadi and that Galloway supported it, when, in fact, Casey Sheehan was killed in a neighborhood rebellion in Sadr City in April 2004

Palast: "Don't get me wrong. Unlike Hitchens, I cannot support the Prevaricator-in-Chief, the President who ordered Cindy Sheehan's son, Casey, to march to his death in Baghdad. But I'll be damned if I'll cheer some rich white Brit-hole who brings joy to Casey's killers."

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

my response: " . . . . Galloway publicly acknowledges the right of Iraqis to violently resist the occupation and Palast construes this as support for Jihadis, and this is, of course, Palast's main gripe, as it is with Hitchens and others, Galloway follows the logic of the criminality of the war to its logical conclusion, that Iraqis therefore may violently resist it

one need only look at the last paragraph, where Palast talks about Galloway delighting the killers of Cindy Sheehan's son, Casey, which is odd, because my understanding is that even Cindy Sheehan acknowledges that her son was killed in a military action in Sadr City in early April 2004, where he was being sent to violently suppress people who wanted to end the occupation

in other words, Casey Sheehan was in a place where he had no business being, because Bush had put him there, using force against the populace to perpetuate the occupation in the face of a neighborhood rebellion

in this instance, contrary to what Palast implies, the people of Sadr City where in the right, and the US troops sent there, like Casey Sheehan, were in the wrong, regardless of whether they knew what they were doing or not, regardless of whether they supported it or not, and it is unfortunate to see Palast making such cheap, and erroneous use of Casey Sheehan's death

it does, however, as I said, expose the real issue: Galloway's ability to mobilize people globally in support of Iraqi resistance to the occupation, while liberals in the US and Britain want to have their cake and eat it too, by saying the war was wrong, even as they support the troops who fought it and perpetuate the occupation, and deny Iraqis the right to defend themselves by overcoming it"

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1766777_comment.php
(scroll down to about comment no. 14)

frankly, it's a little strange that Cindy Sheehan would appear with him in light of it

there's something a little creepy about someone who would so gleefully use Casey Sheehan's death to make a rhetorical point against Galloway

maybe someone there will put the question to him: do you support the occupation or not? and, if he does, what is he doing speaking at an antiwar event?

--Richard

It's creepy that Palast would use the issue of abortion to smear Galloway (whose perspectives on abortion, I don't agree with at all. See below.) It appears to me that Palast couldn't care less about reproductive rights. An article that Palast wrote, indignantly indicting Galloway for his opposition to abortion has been widely circulated...It was read by me in the hopes that it would contain some real advocacy for reproductive rights. It doesn't and Palast isn't. The article Palast wrote was the latest example of pundits and bureaucrats using the issue of abortion as hand grenades, to be lobbed with the intent to inflict political damage. Sad.
I am weary of progressive saviors not only dropping the ball on reproductive rights and but also using that lack of support to burnish and support their anti-war credentials. With Galloway, they are conjunct. He is Catholic, and their anti-war/anti choice sentiments run on the same continum, which means (according to this formula), that women who have had abortions are equivalent to imperialistic soldiers, intent on mindlessly murdering the insurgents in our wombs. He might soften this message with the "love the sinner, hate the sin" nostrum, which is makes matters worse; it's insultingly condescending. He may not be effectively anti-choice, in that he is not a part of the American judiciary or legislative system, but he still has the power to run variations of the image of murderous women past people in interviews and in other unmediated media spaces. And I'm sure that for the reproductive rights movement in, say, Ireland, who have their work cut out for them, he IS effectively anti-choice. He should be challenged on this issue.
As far as Greg Palast is concerned, the apparent lack of
passion for and integration of feminist ideals or
traditions in his writings proves his disinterest in
the issue of abortion and reproductive rights, except as it is available to be used to smear Galloway and others. He seems to be an opportunist, and based on what I've read, could just as easily revile abortion.
Abortion/reproductive rights have been used far too
often as a litmus test only to prove someone is
right-wing, without stopping to consider it as a going
concern. Support for control of one's body is not a
fetish one waves in front of ones political opponent to prove that they arent what they appear to be.
As I've said, sad. I mean the whole thing.

I agree with your post, especially its thoughtful, somber tone, and it raises a difficult problem: do you exclude someone from a coalition related to peace, anti-imperialism because they don't support reproductive rights?

I personally wouldn't, as long as they were not using the movement to proselytize their other issues, leaving the fight to other venues, but the answer certainly isn't obvious. There's definitely a strong, profound argument to the contrary. (after all, we don't accept white supremacists, now do we?)

Which probably explains why Palast, the pro-occupation liberals and the neo-conservatives opportunistically emphasize it, because, as you say they could care less about reproductive rights.

If Palast really cared, he'd be attacking the Democrats in Congress, people who, unlike Galloway, actually have the political power to fight for reproductive rights in this country, and who, if the Roberts hearing is any indication, are trying to quietly abandon the pro-choice position, as they are the pro-gay rights one.

Thus confirming your sad conclusion that reproductive rights have been reduced to a subject for political exploitation.

(And, as an aside, shouldn't NOW and NARAL be taking strong stances against the war and the occupation, and publicly participating in events that convey this message?

I admit some ignorance here, it may be happening, but I certainly haven't seen it. I haven't even seen them as part of United for Peace and Justice, which, by my standards, is pretty timid, but I am certainly open to being educated about their participation or lack of it.)



--Richard

I know individuals from each group have participated...which is different from institutional participation.
Thanks for your comments. I have participated in most anti-war rallies in San Francisco, and have known, as I did so, that I was marching with a sizable, albeit somewhat invisible, anti-choice contingent that conflates murder in the Mideast with abortion here at home.
I've seen pictures of bombed-out abortion/family planning clinics and I've seen the pictures of schrapnel-scarred faces of clinic staff- Emily Lyons, in particular, who was maimed by Eric Roberts, the clinic bomber, and who later wrote a book describing her experience, entitled "Life is a Blast". I have understood clearly that the "war", which is manifesting on a larger scale in Iraq, is here in America, very visibly, at abortion clinics- the connection for me is direct and immeidiate. So I participate according to that vision, even though I know who I may be marching with.