Galloway: "Crawl back under your rock, Mr Palast!"

edit - I misread the piece. Thanks K-W.


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.

http://www.globalecho.org/view_article.php?aid=5340

pepper my conversation with. "How many times must I respond to to the ravings of guttersnipes?" That is awesome. As far as Galloway/Palast feud? Yeah, strange.

galloway vs hitchens
http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/galloway_hitchens/galloway_hitchens.mp3

peace

It did sound very vitrolic and not like his other reporting. Sounds like some bad blood on Greg's part. :shrug:

All I know is that his rather sophomoric rants at Galloway aren't doing anyone any good except perhaps the Republicans because he keeps uttering Neo-CON talking points like Rove has a gun to his head.

CUT IT OUT GREG!!!!

but having read a ton of Palast's work, having seen him speak and met him briefly, I would hate to see a bunch of people slam Palast because their new hero Galloway says so.

based only your like of Palast?

Who cares who is a fan of who. We are talking about matters of fact here.

more of what Palast wrote, googling about it, researching. While on my lunch break ;)

I am surprised at this whole thing, frankly, and I don't want people to forget all the good things Palast has said and done for many of the causes we find important (have you read "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy"?).

I have nothing against Galloway either right now..

Peace.

but having read a ton of Palast's work, having seen him speak and met him briefly, I would hate to see a bunch of people slam Palast because their new hero Galloway says so.

So you arent taking sides, just smearing anyone who supports Galloway.

I have nothing against Galloway either right now..

Just his supporters then?

and I have nothing against Galloway or his supporters.

I am not going to argue with you about what you think I meant by something. It's not my style. If you want to argue, find someone else to do it with. My lunch break is almost over.

Peace.

Galloway says so."

So you dont think that is a smear?

In my mind, it was just a reminder that Palast is on our side too. It seemed like the tone of the thread was sort of Palast-bashing.

I know people who are really great friends of mine but who don't get along with each other. I don't take sides with them, just like I haven't taken sides here.

I really have to go now, but my words stand for themselves. I am not that complicated a person. If I was smearing someone, I would be really obvious about it.

Peace.

and would therefore unfairly smear Grege Palast remind people of anything about Greg Palast? It seems pretty obvious that you were suggesting criticisms of Palast might originate from ignorant Galloway fans.

It seemed like the tone of the thread was sort of Palast-bashing. Well Galloway did bash Palast, but it was in response to Palast bashing Galloway. So I'm not sure how Palast is a victim here.

I know people who are really great friends but who don't get along with each other. I don't take sides with them, just like I haven't taken sides here.

Then why did you make that comment about Galloway supporters?

I really have to go now, but my words stand for themselves. I am not that complicated a person. If I was smearing someone, I would be really obvious about it.

You were really obvious about it.

I read his works and appreciate his efforts. I like him.

However his rants on Galloway are both vile and out of character.

Is he taking a Hitchens slide?

Why Gruesome George gets so much love on DU, I'll never know.

But instead of trying to smear people as Galloway lovers. Maybe you could attempt civil discourse and actually discuss the issues invovled.

are relevent. Galloway is not someone that I admire very much. He is inconsistent in his approach to world affairs and seems to mostly be in it for himself. I also cannot fathom why so many on DU like this guy. Yelling at a few Senators isn't enough to overcome rooting for a blood-thirsty bastard.

Well at least you are obvious with your demonizing.

And that Galloway was rooting for him. The latter claim is at least debatable, but do you really want to dismiss the former as baseless "demonizing?"

I'm not a fan of Palast, but I think it's a sure bet that he knows more about British political figures and about Galloway in particular than do most of the people here who have decided at a snap of Galloway's fingers that former hero Palast is insta-scum. The very vituperousness of Galloway's response should be a bigass clue as to his character -- and no, the fact that Palast's attack was harsh doesn't make Galloway's abusive and ignorant reply OK. The fact that he got off some fine rhetoric when faced with a brainless haircut like Norm Coleman doesn't mean that he's fit for anything else.

In the UK, Galloway is considered a somewhat marginal figure with a shameless gift for self-promotion. Outside of his own political party (a very small one) he is not widely loved, and is viewed with suspicion by many people from both ends of the political spectrum.

What is your point?

Heck in America liberals are marginalized and viewed with suspicion.

aren't generally viewed with suspicion by people on the same side as they are. I'm definitely "on the left" in the UK, but as much as I despise that little toad Tony Blair, I still wouldn't want George Galloway as Prime Minister. He's got a gift for public speaking, but then so do a lot of people, and there's something about Galloway that strikes me as as shady and self-serving - and it's not just from the RW press either, it comes from both sides. I don't hate him but I don't trust him either, and I would never vote for him.

It surprises me that so many at DU are keen to embrace Mr. Galloway based solely on an impressive performance eviscerating Norm Coleman. It wasn't exactly a challenge for Galloway (because one thing George can do is think on his feet), and probably any number of people here could have done the same thing. If a Republican did some of the questionable things Galloway has in his career, people here would be in a right lather about it.

I've said in another post elsewhere that there's a lot more to being an MP than being against the war. It's of huge importance, of course, but it's not the only thing, and George picking up lucrative speaking fees in the United States isn't helping his constituents back home. Not everything is about America and not everything is about the war. Galloway won his current seat by just over 800 votes. It will be interesting to see if his new constituents think he has earned re-election next time, because in a constituency as poor as Bethnal Green and Bow, the war isn't the major concern for many of the people who live there.

It happens everywhere.

Hey, you might be right. But the fact remains that there is a sustained campaign to smear Galloway, so one has to be wary of trusting notions, perceptions, and commonly held attitudes about him.

It surprises me that so many at DU are keen to embrace Mr. Galloway based solely on an impressive performance eviscerating Norm Coleman.

Im usually not suprised when people are impressed by something impressive.

Whatever Galloway does in England, here is he travelling around speaking truth to power. And whether or not the man is perfect, or even admirable doesnt change that fact. People on DU are supporting him because right now he is supporting us.

and appreciate your reasoned response. We're on the same side, even if not exactly in lockstep with each other.:)

Edited to say that I love your avatar. I'm a Marx Brothers fan going all the way back to my childhood.

So what was actually said was equally rediculous and is still demonizing him.

I'm not a fan of Palast, but I think it's a sure bet that he knows more about British political figures and about Galloway in particular

So you are just going to assume that Palast is right because he is Greg Palast without checking the facts? Thats an odd bet you are making, especially since Palast is just rehashing attacks on Galloway that have been made over and over again by the right.

than do most of the people here who have decided at a snap of Galloway's fingers that former hero Palast is insta-scum.

What a rediculous charecterization of the opinions of your fellow DU'rs.

The very vituperousness of Galloway's response should be a bigass clue as to his character=

No its actually just a reflection of the severity of the accusations made against him and his frustration at having them repeated ad nauseum even after most of them have been debunked.

I find it more telling that you are trying to impune his charecter because he responds harshly to harsh accusations. Grasping a little?

-- and no, the fact that Palast's attack was harsh doesn't make Galloway's abusive and ignorant reply OK.

No the fact that Palasts attack was baseless makes Galloways abusive and hardly ignorant reply OK.

Which part of Galloways response is ignorant by the way? Earlier you suggested that Palast must know more about Galloway than we do. Are we not also to assume that Galloway knows more about Galloway than either Palast or we do?

The fact that he got off some fine rhetoric when faced with a brainless haircut like Norm Coleman doesn't mean that he's fit for anything else.

No shit. But how is that relevant to what we are discussing exactly?

You attack anyone who makes even the most sideways comment.

I didnt realize that debunking bad arguments qualified as an attack.

Some of your replies just seem a little nitpicky to me.

Did he, actually? Or did Palast just say he did?

Galloway never condemned Hussein and his financial dealings with people who got rich off of shady dealings in the 'Oil-for-food' program have never been fully explained. Coleman is an idiot and a self-serving POS, but that doesn't mean that all arguments against UN corruption are false. Some of them do have merit and the case against Galloway may hold water as well.

Again, I was not impressed with Galloway. I am even less impressed at the thought that he is traveling the US making money off of sideshow tag-team shouting matches with the likes of that idiot Hitchens. Ahm, he has a constituency in Scotland, why is he leaving them to make cash in the US? Sorry, I would defend him if I had more positives and less grandstanding on his part.

it's in London - Bethnal Green and Bow.

He was attempting to be persuasive to Saddam. His comments reflect that.

Galloway never condemned Hussein and his financial dealings with people who got rich off of shady dealings in the 'Oil-for-food' program have never been fully explained.

The time when innuendo about the oil for food program held water against Galloway really has passed. He has been investigated on both sides of the pond and nothing has come of it.

and I too don't really want to take a side in this because I don't know enough about Galloway.

I haven't followed the Galloway story as much as others but I would not dismiss anything Palast reports on so easily. He's usually very good at uncovering nasty things wwe don't expect.

going way off-topic here, and this is just for you - when are you leaving for the UK? PM me if you get a chance and let me know where you're headed, and best wishes to you and Mr. BooScout on your new life over here!

See my post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4828061

John Edwards before the VP debate . . .

It was proven that Cheney met Edwards.

Please prove to me that Galloway has heard of Palast in the last couple of years.

too good a journo (it seems to me) to be making it all up as he goes. There's probably something there, though what, where, or how much are all unanswerable at least by me.

Galloway's response is what one would expect: British politicians don't survive if they can't give at least as good as they get and do it on the hop, too.

Because I do.

and, as I have said in another Galloway/Palast post, realizes that most British people on the left view Galloway with some skepticism...

YES.

I LOVED George's attack on the US Congress. That was f*cking brilliant. Spot-on.

But Palast has legitimate points. Of the two, Palast seems the least likely to have a shadowy ulterior motive.

So I come down slightly on the side of Palast.

But I LIKE BOTH OF THEM. They serve different functions in the anti* movement.

I have no problem w/ Mr Galloway either.

I loved it when Galloway slammed our Congress....but, I have been in and out of the UK enough times to catch Palast a number of times in the past 4 years or so and I cannot dismiss his reporting. He has an excellent reputation in exposing ugly little secrets and he is very well known. For Galloway to dismiss him as not hearing from in years borders on the ludicrous.

I have to give some credence to Palast's reporting.

Greg Palast is an egoistic nobody who has had the gluible American public believing that he is respected jopurnalist of some name in the UK.

I had never heard of Palast till he appeared in the US claiming his investigative journalism on the 2000 US elections.

Greg Palasts are by the dozen on this side of the Atlantic!!

And his tirade against George Galloway, was, as I had suspected and clearly stated in a couple of earlier threads on the DU, a clear case of jealousy and trying to get some free publicity by attacking George and jumping on the Cindy Sheehan bandwagon.

I had writen to Cindy warning her about such coattail hangers-on, and finally, when I saw what Greg Palast was up to, I made it an implicit warning about him.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jfszamos/GallowayLeafletFINAL.pdf

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

"Hamas is a Palestinian national resistance movement, analogus to the organisations fighting for freedom in Kashmir"

but not even bothering to refute any of it.

Why would I bother refuting something that has been refuted numerous times already? Especially when it is so obviously designed to smear him and wouldnt be taken seriously by anyone with any sense of objectivity.

If you want though, I will point out that the statement about Hamas you quoted is true and doesnt in any way mean he sympathizes with terrorists.

for both men my internal bullshit detector was in full swing. More of course for Hitchens but there was something about Galloway that didn't "feel" right with me.

I have read Palast and heard interviews with him now for 3 years, and not once did my bs detector go off.

Sheesh.