Thursday, May 12, 2005
"Both (empty) Barrels"
In the latest installment of the biggest scandal ever ignored by the MSM, British MP George Galloway fired off some comments to his detractors about his willingness to confront allegations he was heavily bribed during the oil for food scandal. (Hat Tip: G.H.A.)
It is amusing to first note that Britain has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the civilized world, many of which Mr. Galloway voted for, and it is unlikely he would be able to brandish the weapon were he able to legally acquire it. A quick glance on wikipedia, and we discover that Mr. Galloway has a long history of fiery quotes, and soft actions:
+ In 1994, Galloway faced some of his strongest criticism on his return from a Middle-Eastern visit during which he had met Saddam Hussein and reported the support given to him by the people of the Gaza Strip. He had been filmed saying "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability".
+"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."
+attended 3% of votes in parliament in the last year — 649th out of 657 MPs.
+"No wolf would commit the sort of crimes against humanity that George Bush committed against the people of Iraq."
Mr. Galloway represents all that is wrong with the left today: the self loathing, the raging anti-corporate rants, and a superficial respect for the lives of a few, only to help him campaign among his shrinking constituency. "No wolf" eh? How about a dictatorial tyrant who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, cut off limbs, burned and stabbed, raped women and girls in front of their families and fed people through wood chippers. The saddest part is that I could be talking about Saddam, or the Soviet Union he so pathetically pines for. But this strikes at something deeper, quotes like this, something that is inherently hypocritical about the pacifist, socialist left in Europe, and growing in the United States.
George Orwell argued much better than I can, that pacifism is not only wrong but a moral wrong at its core. Mr. Galloway advocates acts of violence, comic as they may be, against legitimate authorities who question his involvement in an international conspiracy. Yet he condemns such action when it would liberate millions from the clutches of a never-ending nightmare in Iraq. So how can he claim to be anything but the biggest of hypocrits. You decry violence, yet you allow yourself to live in a civilized society that can only be maintained by other people undertaking violent acts on your behalf. You would will that others commit the very acts you yourself reject (at least some of the time), so that you can claim the moral superiority for not committing them?
Its no surprise he supported the Iraqi regime, it was feeding him a free ticket to millions of barrels of oil. If he wishes to confront his detractors, he will need to do better then make of beat remarks about brandishing firearms. He will need to address the legitimate body of evidence and allegations first raised by British media outlets, then by the Iraq Survey Group and the US congress. Part of me wishes he would come to the US, and be brought to task for his involvement. But, like before, I am afraid this is little more than more pathetic braying while others keep the wolves at bay.
"Book the flights, let's go, let's give them both barrels," his spokesman quoted him as saying.
"That's guns, not oil."
It is amusing to first note that Britain has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the civilized world, many of which Mr. Galloway voted for, and it is unlikely he would be able to brandish the weapon were he able to legally acquire it. A quick glance on wikipedia, and we discover that Mr. Galloway has a long history of fiery quotes, and soft actions:
+ In 1994, Galloway faced some of his strongest criticism on his return from a Middle-Eastern visit during which he had met Saddam Hussein and reported the support given to him by the people of the Gaza Strip. He had been filmed saying "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability".
+"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."
+attended 3% of votes in parliament in the last year — 649th out of 657 MPs.
+"No wolf would commit the sort of crimes against humanity that George Bush committed against the people of Iraq."
Mr. Galloway represents all that is wrong with the left today: the self loathing, the raging anti-corporate rants, and a superficial respect for the lives of a few, only to help him campaign among his shrinking constituency. "No wolf" eh? How about a dictatorial tyrant who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, cut off limbs, burned and stabbed, raped women and girls in front of their families and fed people through wood chippers. The saddest part is that I could be talking about Saddam, or the Soviet Union he so pathetically pines for. But this strikes at something deeper, quotes like this, something that is inherently hypocritical about the pacifist, socialist left in Europe, and growing in the United States.
George Orwell argued much better than I can, that pacifism is not only wrong but a moral wrong at its core. Mr. Galloway advocates acts of violence, comic as they may be, against legitimate authorities who question his involvement in an international conspiracy. Yet he condemns such action when it would liberate millions from the clutches of a never-ending nightmare in Iraq. So how can he claim to be anything but the biggest of hypocrits. You decry violence, yet you allow yourself to live in a civilized society that can only be maintained by other people undertaking violent acts on your behalf. You would will that others commit the very acts you yourself reject (at least some of the time), so that you can claim the moral superiority for not committing them?
Its no surprise he supported the Iraqi regime, it was feeding him a free ticket to millions of barrels of oil. If he wishes to confront his detractors, he will need to do better then make of beat remarks about brandishing firearms. He will need to address the legitimate body of evidence and allegations first raised by British media outlets, then by the Iraq Survey Group and the US congress. Part of me wishes he would come to the US, and be brought to task for his involvement. But, like before, I am afraid this is little more than more pathetic braying while others keep the wolves at bay.
Comments:
Post a Comment
