Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Stephen,
One other item you missed, a tremendous piece of political theater. Senator Norm Coleman (R) MN, brought British MP George Galloway before a Senate Committee to address charges involving the oil-for-food scandal.

Galloway, an outstanding speaker, gave the speech of his life. Here is an excerpt:

“I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.

“Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.

If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq’s wealth.

“Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq’s wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Haliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq’s money, but the money of the American taxpayer.

“Have a look at the oil that you didn’t even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.”

Galloway was superb. He cold-cocked Coleman.

Coleman was supposedly a DA. What a dumb****. Coleman was utterly unprepared, and tossed charges at Galloway which had already been proven false; in fact, the CS Monitor lost a libel suit to Galloway over the same charges.

Hey, Minnesotans, you’ve got to get yourself a better Senator, Republican, Democrat, Independent, whatever. This Coleman guy is an embarrassment.

I can just see Coleman handling William Jennings Bryant. “Mr Bryant, I’d like to crucify man on a cross of gold, but I’d like to put you on television and give you free reign to say what you think first.”

Coleman, a District Attorney? Sheesh, what a dumb****.

And what a superb moment of political theater.

Got a link to the full text, phx8? That sounds hilarious.

Here it is:

http://www.preemptivekarma.com/archives/2005/05/galloway_bitchs_1.html

I was not aware BushCo stole 8 Billion Dollars from Iraq. It does not surprise me that George would want a retirement fund. God must have told him to do it.

Watch the video…the man is amazing. He came out swinging hard. No notes, no faltering on delivery, just stared straight at Coleman while he evicerated him. I got goosebumps…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4556113.stm#

Galloway was truly impressive in his oratory. Of course he said nothing that vindicated himself in the eyes of Congresspersons present, but, then, for many of them, guilt was a foregone conclusion so their being swayed by oratory was not going to happen anyway. Got to hate/love American politicians if you spend much time watching them.

Will write more later on your other topics. There is no doubt Galloway is a brillant speaker. You can also catch him in a 1994 video praising Saddam Hussein and his great courage. If you listened only to Galoway’s talk, you would have believed he was talking about someone like Nelson Mandella.

I respect Galoway’s skill as a speaker, but not the person. Anyone taken in by it doesn’t know the history.

I was way more interested in what Galloway said than the way he said it,

Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq’s wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Haliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq’s money, but the money of the American taxpayer.

Have a look at the oil that you didn’t even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? …the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government.

Whatever else the guy may have done, he did his homework anyhow. The billion and a half Saddam made from OFF kickbacks was nothing compared to the $11 billion he made from the US govt turning a blind eye to illegal oil transfers - much of which ended up in the tanks of US oil corps. But Coleman won’t be looking into that, I bet.

Well, that was just my pent up rage for this time.

So take that! :) Sorry Stephen, that sounded more like outrage than rage. If you want rage, check out the Rude Pundit: smart, angry and foul. I love it.

My feeling on the Oil For Food Scandal is to keep an open mind. That includes, in my opinion, being prepared for the worst on both sides. If you’ve followed the news, the truth is, there was corruption in the Oil for Food program. But you would also know that we allowed an even greater amount of oil to be illegally sold under our noses to our allies in the region.

I think the truth is, the Oil for Food scandal is a sideshow to that, and something else: The Far Right and Neocons efforts to dissolve the UN as an effective foreign political force in the world. They have always seen it as a brake on our power in the world. And they are right. And they miss the point of that.

We may be the only superpower, but we’re not the only power, and if we push things far enough, others will gather against us. We are mortal, we are human, and our economy has its limits

The UN can be a field of battle for us, as long as we play by the rules of the game. In part, that means acting as if we are on the side of good. In part, that means being on the side of good, too. Being the champions of Democracy and humanitarian causes means being true to those values in how we fight and how we work in the world. When we are not, then our rhetoric rings hollow, and our efforts are met with cynicism and resistance.

We must be truth of freedom and virtue to those we wish to take on our notions of liberty and democracy. We cannot merely tell people what is good and right. We must show people through our actions. To the extent we do so, we can succeed in peacemaking.

Sometimes, that means fighting wars. We must choose to intervene sometimes. We must choose to defend ourselves sometimes. But when we do these things, we must choose the right time, place, and manner, and learn the patience to make the difficult choices these entail.

What we must not do, is seek war as the first solution. First, death is a rather irrevocable result of any action. War create a great deal of that. Naturally Death is an emotional issue for people, and we only win if our force is sudden, precise, and overwhelming enough to overcome the passion to fight back and take revenge. By that, I mean that we stick to targets that are military, and therefore considered by others to be legitimate targets taking a risk. We overwhelm them so fast and with such intimidating force and skill, that their primal brains calculate fighting back as a no-go. Iraq was always the wrong war for this sort of a approach, and America has always been the wrong country to attempt imperial foreign policies. We don’t have the sort of rigidly hierarchical culture or government that would be required to keep us on the imperial course through all the bloodshed, campaigns, economic troubles, and heartaches that come with being a conquering aggressor.

In the end, we fight defensive wars not merely because they are morally superior, but also because they are consistent with the attributes of a nation like ours in a way that aggressive warfare and conquest are not.

The Far Right and Neocons efforts to dissolve the UN as an effective foreign political force in the world.

I think the UN is dissolving itself quite effectively by its own actions.

Iraq was always the wrong war for this sort of a approach, and America has always been the wrong country to attempt imperial foreign policies

You know, I was going to argue that one, but since it’s opening day for the last Star Wars….

Jack:
“You can also catch him in a 1994 video praising Saddam Hussein and his great courage. If you listened only to Galoway’s talk, you would have believed he was talking about someone like Nelson Mandella.”

Jack, to try to understand Galloway’s motives in that instance, we have to keep in mind that we had once supported Hussein, too. (And Rumsfeld met many more times with Saddam and was far more chummy with him than Galloway ever was.) It appears that Galloway viewed what we did (meaning western governments) as actually giving full support to Iraqi facism in the 1980’s, but then changed our mind, and ultimately abandoned its people with the premature ending of the first Gulf War — whereupon hundreds of thousands died because of the subsequent sanctions. That speech you’re referring to was all about the sanctions.

Here is the transcript of what Galloway said before a large Iraqi crowd to Hussein:

Your Excellency, Mr President: I greet you, in the name of the many thousands of people in Britain who stood against the tide and opposed the war and aggression against Iraq and continue to oppose the war by economic means, which is aimed to strangle the life out of the great people of Iraq.
I greet you, too, in the name of the Palestinian people, amongst whom I’ve just spent two weeks in the occupied Palestinian territories. I can honestly tell you that there was not a single person to whom I told I was coming to Iraq and hoping to meet with yourself who did not wish me to convey their heartfelt, fraternal greetings and support.
And this was true, especially at the base in the refugee camps of Jabaliyah and Beach Camp in Gaza, in the Balatah refugee camp in Nablus and on the streets of the towns and villages in the occupied lands.
I thought the president would appreciate knowing that even today, three years after the war, I still met families who were calling their newborn sons Saddam; and that two weeks ago, when I was trapped inside the Orient House, which is the Palestinian headquarters in Al-Quds, with 5,000 armed mustwatinin [settlers] outside demonstrating, pledging to tear down the Palestinian flag from the flagpole, the hundreds of shabab [youths] inside the compound were chanting that they wish to be with a DSh K [machine gun] in Baghdad to avenge the eyes of Abu Jihad [late Palestinian leader Khalil al-Wazir who was killed in Tunisia]. And the Youth Club in Silwan, which is the one of the most resistant of all the villages around Jerusalem, asked me to ask the president’s permission if they could enrol him as an honorary member of their club and to present him with this flag from holy Jerusalem.
I wish to say, sir, that I believe that we are turning the tide in Europe, that the scale of the humanitarian disaster which has been imposed upon the Iraqi people is now becoming more and more widely known and accepted.
Fifty-five British members of parliament opposed the war, but 125 are demanding the lifting of the embargo.
And this does not include the invisible section of the Conservative Party who must also be moving in that direction. And Sir Edward Heath is being a very persuasive advocate inside the Conservative Party.
It is my belief that we must convey the very clear picture that 1994 has to be the year of the ending of the embargo against Iraq. Otherwise, famine and all the awful consequences, including acts of despair by Iraqis, will be the result. And this is the message we must convey to civilized opinion in Europe.
Sir: I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability. And I want you to know that we are with you hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [preceding words in Arabic which mean until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem].

That last bit where he is “saluting your courage, strength and indefatigability” he later claimed he was actually aiming at the Iraqi people themselves who were suffering horribly under the sanctions. However pure his motives might have been in trying to help the Iraqi people though, it does appear to me as though he was sucking up way too much to a brutal dictator.

That being said, what was so fantastic about what Galloway did the other day, was that it was the kind of direct, no-nonsense oratory that I long to see from those on the American Left in light of all the horrendous mistakes these Neocon’s are making/have made.
I can’t help but admire the way so many UK politicians don’t bother to mince words, or dance around issues trying harder to be polite than they do getting down to the brass tacks of a matter. Galloway’s straightforward yet eloquent words, piercing gaze and direct manner are an excellent example of what I’d love to see from our own politicians. In comparison, I think ours (on both sides) come off as prepackaged salesmen: weasely, slimy, slick and completely dishonest.

Here is a link where Watchblogger’s can choose to see or hear the best portion of what Galloway had to say in Streaming RealPlayer Broadband, Dial-up or Audio Only MP3. Also, the entire transcript is available here as well.

Ari Berman
1 hour, 13 minutes ago

“Such people must be shot in the forehead,” Uzbekistan dictator Islam Karimov once said of political dissidents. “If necessary, I’ll shoot them myself.” When not personally gunning down his opposition, Karimov keeps busy by instructing his security forces to boil, rape or asphyxiate political prisoners.

ADVERTISEMENT

Luckily for Karimov, he’s a key US ally in the war on terror. The brutal events of last week only confirmed that awful reality. For months the Uzbek government had incarcerated 23 businessmen in the eastern city of Andijan on trumped-up charges of supporting an obscure Islamist group. Last week, militants stormed the prison and freed the prisoners. When thousands of demonstrators, emboldened by the jail break, assembled in Andijan’s town square to protest their country’s climate of repression, corruption and poverty, Karimov travelled to the city and instructed his soldiers to open fire on the crowd. Violence soon spread to the border with Kyrgyzstan, as soldiers allegedly targeted women and children. Anywhere from a few hundred to 745 people are reported dead.

The Bush Administration’s response to the butchery was both comical and sad. “We have some concerns about human rights in Uzbekistan, but we are concerned about the outbreak of violence, particularly by some members of a terrorist group freed from prison,” Scott McClellan said. “The people of Uzbekistan want to see more representative and democratic government, but that should come through peaceful means, not through violence.”

How peaceful change will occur when the US has supplied Karimov with $500 million in military aid and waived human rights requirements for military and non-proliferation assistance is anyone’s guess. Shortly after 9/11, Uzbekistan granted the US a crucial air base to use for the war in Afghanistan.

The Bush Administration then began funneling $79 in aid to Uzbek security forces at the same time the State Department was condemning “torture as a routine investigation technique.” When Colin Powell tried to cut off $18 million in additional aid for the security forces, General Richard Myers protested, and forced Powell to restore $7 million.

And just two weeks ago, the New York Times reported that the CIA had sent at least a dozen suspected terrorists to Uzbekistan for interrogation via a secret rendition program. “In my view, we shouldn’t let any single issue drive a relationship with any single county,” Myers said, dismissing human rights concerns. “It doesn’t seem to be good policy to me.”

Meanwhile, on a recent trip to Europe, Bush appeared even more divorced from reality than usual. “We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability,” he said in Latvia. Then again, this is the man who once told the New Yorker, “No president has ever done more for human rights than I have.”

Jack said
“I respect Galoway’s skill as a speaker, but not the person. Anyone taken in by it doesn’t know the history.”

And AP said
“I was way more interested in what Galloway said than the way he said it”

I say, why oh why are y’all trying to kill my buzz? Why I ask ya whyyyyy?

Adrienne comes to the rescue with:

“Galloway’s straightforward yet eloquent words, piercing gaze and direct manner are an excellent example of what I’d love to see from our own politicians.”

Thank you Adrienne. I’m happy again…carry on.

Adrienne

We were never as chummy as Galoway and Galoway was chummy at a much later date. You could argue in the 1980s that Saddam was the lesser of the evils. By 1994, this arguement was gone.

Beyond that, in 1994 Galoway is advocating ending the embargo. At that time Saddam still had the WMD for sure. He was in the process of carrying out genocide against the marsh Arabs and creating an ecological disaster. This was well known and not disputed.

As for the praise Galoway says he aimed at the Iraq people, I saw the tape. He is looking at Saddam with what appears to be love. His tones are not to an impersonal people. This guy knows how to convey his meaning, as we all saw. He wasn’t misunderstood.

Galway is like Groucho Marx who says:

“What are you going to believe? Me or you own eyes.”

Jack,
I actually agree with you. Where did you get the idea I was trying to completely defend Galloway? I said: “However pure his motives might have been in trying to help the Iraqi people though, it does appear to me as though he was sucking up way too much to a brutal dictator.”
Hey, could you provide a link so I can see him gazing at Saddam with love? I looked for it earlier, but I can’t seem to find it anywhere.

Nikita:
“y’all trying to kill my buzz? Why I ask ya whyyyyy?”

You know what? Nothing could kill my buzz over what he said or the way he said it. It’s just a shame it took a politician from the UK to give voice to exactly how so many American’s feel about the actions of this administration.

Adrienne

I saw it on television. I think it was on the Newshour, but I don’t rightly recall. I will see if I can find someplace on the web.

Adrienne,
“Galloway’s straightforward yet eloquent words, piercing gaze and direct manner are an excellent example of what I’d love to see from our own politicians.”

Exactly. And what amazes me is that Coleman, a Senator of the United States and a former District Attorney, could be so unbelievably stupid. How could he allow himself to be put into that position? Framed alone on camera, sitting behind a desk so that he looks dwarfed by the furniture and setting, shuffling papers and looking anywhere, everywhere but at Galloway, weakly stumbling through his counterargument. Honestly.

Imagine a US politician showing Galloway’s poise, strong demeanor, and ability to powerfully articulate a position.

Blair, by the way, is also a very good orator.

Galloway might be guilty as hell, but what superb showmanship! Coleman looked like an absolute fool. Like I said, political theater at its best.

phx8:
“Imagine a US politician showing Galloway’s poise, strong demeanor, and ability to powerfully articulate a position.”

Yes. What a refreshing change that would be!

“Blair, by the way, is also a very good orator.”

It seems like so many of them are. Quite obviously, Parliament is no place for the dimwitted, slow-tongued, or faint of heart.

“Galloway might be guilty as hell, but what superb showmanship!”

:^) It struck me as a very Scottish performance!
From my own experience, it can be extremely amusing, and often electrifying, to watch two canny Scotsmen going at each other in an argument. American’s don’t tend to act that way with each other. We tend to get very upset when a dispute gets too passionate or intense, while they absolutely revel in the fierce correctness of their own opinions.

“Coleman looked like an absolute fool.”

The man never saw it coming.

“Like I said, political theater at its best.”

Yes. Too bad we don’t get a lot more like it!

Adrienne, great debate and I am on your side (except for any implied support for our Democratic Party - have to say that being a Nader supporter.) I was tickled to see another person hold their own against Jack.

Jack’s arguments have the facade of independence but their underlying structure is pure Republican.

I am not dissin’ ya’ Jack, quite the contrary, you are a formidable debater defending the conservative bent, in my opinion.

David

My arguments are both independent and Republican.

The reason I write for the side I do is that I generally agree with it. I would probably drift a little more toward the libertarian, but there is no perfect fit for me, so I fit where I can.

Interestingly enough, I thought I was taking a line out in front of the President re Uzbekistan. Then I read his
">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050518-2.html”> speech from yesterday.

It makes me proud to be an American.

To indulge in the slight derail: here are some salient details on the Oil for Food scandal.

The UN is Us

US ‘backed illegal oil deals’

David
“I am on your side (except for any implied support for our Democratic Party - have to say that being a Nader supporter.)”

Well, as I’m sure you’re aware, I’m now a bit of trespasser in this column myself these days…
Have to admit though, I’ll always feel more loyalty toward whoever stands on the Left side of the ideological divide.

“I was tickled to see another person hold their own against Jack.”

:^) I think I threw Jack by partially agreeing with him!

Jack:
“I would probably drift a little more toward the libertarian, but there is no perfect fit for me, so I fit where I can.”

So then you mean you’re an enigma, wrapped in a fortune cookie, stuffed inside the Elephants trunk? ;^)

Joseph — those were very interesting articles, thanks.

Jack, you know what makes me proud to be an American? Civil rights legislation enacted and enforced until broadly accepted. Checks and balances on police power like Miranda rights, makes me proud to be an American. Our immense contribution to winning WWII.

Things that make me ashamed of America are our treatment of the royal crown of Hawaii prior to annexation, our total disregard of so many Indian treaties and the broken promises toward them, the Japanese internment camps during WWII and the extreme fearfullness and lack of courage they reflected, our double standards like initiating Kyoto accords and then refusing to sign and telling other nations to lay down nuclear development as we not so covertly try to increase ours.

I would not have wanted to be born in any other country on earth, but, America has the potential of being even greater than she already is. Remaining critical of her when she errs is the only way I as an individual can help her fulfill more of her potential, while never forgetting to sing her praises at the same time.

It is somewhat instructive that an original posting about Bolton, the Filibuster, and the Pension Crisis (all worthy of detailed treatment) almost immediately degenerated into a discussion on Iraq. Call me crazy, but it seems a reflection of a national trend that Progressives may be marginalizing their movement by carrying such laser-like focus on the War, further fueled with a hatred of the religious right. This one issue seems to have come to define the Left, which is out of the mainstream with its extreme vitriol over the War and may become an ineffective counter to the right. And if the USA is actually successful with reforming the middle-east in the President’s vision, the Left will have been on the wrong side of history.

Kentucky, I don’t know about the “left”, but Democrats have defined themselves by a very fine set of mainstream legislation, “The American Promise: A Future of Security, Opportunity and Responsibility”. See for yourself.

Kentucky Jon:
“It is somewhat instructive that an original posting about Bolton, the Filibuster, and the Pension Crisis (all worthy of detailed treatment) almost immediately degenerated into a discussion on Iraq.”

Actually, it isn’t instructive at all. The topics of Bolton, the Filibuster, and the Pension Crisis have been covered in other recent articles, and folks left, right and center have been discussing them in other threads on all three columns of this blog.

“And if the USA is actually successful with reforming the middle-east in the President’s vision,”

The way most folks on the left see it, that isn’t happening, and because of it’s flawed nature, it likely won’t in the future. And we wonder why people on the right can’t seem to take off the rose-colored glasses and notice that the president’s vision for the Middle East is seriously impaired — because he only looks at his own ideologies rather than at Reality.

“the Left will have been on the wrong side of history.”

The only thing the left is on the wrong side of is being the Majority — but that could change as soon as ‘06!

Kentucky-
You guys always bring up our sour feelings towards the Republican party without really considering what motivates them.

If your party ran things with respect for us, including us in discussions of important issues, taking our positions into account when selecting judges and officials. You might not see the antipathy.

If your side wasn’t making us the scapegoats for its problems with maintaining the integrity of our national security, wasn’t playing political games with peoples lives in Iraq, and wasn’t taking a scorched earth approach to politics, you might not see us so mad. But your side has decided not to respect us, not to include us, and not to take responsibility for your own problems.

It’s not our fault that the GOP as a national organization has decided not to get along with half the country, and that we can’t be absolute vulcans about the outrages and injustices that have followed from the Right’s approach to us.