Moving this video to bcglorf's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*promoted for truthiness, or at least to open the discussion

Invocations (promote) cannot be called by BoneyD because BoneyD is not privileged - sorry.

*beg

Sending this video to Beggar's Canyon to plea for a little attention - beg requested by original submitter bcglorf.

and the sift is silent.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by MINK.

>> ^MINK:
and the sift is silent.

implying that this wasn't something most were aware of?

yeah, galloway's clearly backpedaling on earlier statements supportive of saddam.
not exactly shocking. rumsfeld's wishing his happy handshake footage didn't exist, too.

the interviewer's actual question is a slippery slope, though, and should've been presented more honestly. and galloway's a goof for not catching it, like powell did.

but if this is topical and suchlike for the submitter, then sure. upped.

just if palin said it there's be 100 votes here. just sayin.

>> ^my15minutes:
>> ^MINK:
and the sift is silent.
implying that this wasn't something most were aware of?
yeah, galloway's clearly backpedaling on earlier statements supportive of saddam.
not exactly shocking. rumsfeld's wishing his happy handshake footage didn't exist, too.
the interviewer's actual question is a slippery slope, though, and should've been presented more honestly. and galloway's a goof for not catching it, like powell did.
but if this is topical and suchlike for the submitter, than sure. upped.


The interviewer was leading him with a tricky question? You've got to be kidding me. When Galloway has repeatedly boasted of how he has been condemning Saddam since the 80's, I think it's fair to point out that in the 90's Galloway went to Saddam to share 'heartfelt fraternal greetings and support'.

If you oppose the war, it doesn't mean you need to defend anyone else who opposes it as well. Galloway is a liar,propagandist and apologist for middle eastern dictators. He needs to be condemned for it. Much like even though I now support the Iraq war, I still feel free to condemn Bush and Cheney for a laundry list of very bad things they've been responsible for.

>> ^bcglorf:
> The interviewer was leading him with a tricky question? You've got to be kidding me. When Galloway has repeatedly boasted of how he has been condemning Saddam since the 80's, I think it's fair to point out that in the 90's Galloway went to Saddam to share 'heartfelt fraternal greetings and support'.

yes, and i'd agree that was fair to point out.
which is why you'll notice my objection was to "the interviewer's actual question".

it's phrased as a slippery slope that associates galloway's having once praised saddam, with thinking that iraq was better off under saddam than not.

another great example of this kind of thing is Madeleine Albright. 3rd paragraph in, there, "In 1996 she was also criticized for..." footage here, with lesley stahl.

she still takes an enormous amount of flak for her poor answer, to this day. look no further than the description at that last youtube clip. "Albright makes statement that ultimately led to 9/11." oy. by what quantum leap of deduction?!? see? again, slippery.

so, yeah.
first off, the interviewer shouldn't have relied on easily-dismissed 3rd-party allegations that galloway once praised saddam. why not instead, simply run the footage you should already have, supporting that fact?
then, just turn & ask galloway a fair, open-ended question: "what's your reaction?"
does he regret saying it? had there been a recent event that sparked your praise for his courage? what had saddam done to warrant this flattery?

instead, they present him with an opportunity to lie and backpedal, which he promptly does.

watch that powell clip again, where he catches a slippery question and responds intelligently, and let me know if my original point makes sense now.

instead, they present him with an opportunity to lie and backpedal, which he promptly does.

Which might be forgiven if he didn't make that same lie over and over again. There are videos of at least 3 different occasions on which Galloway repeatedly insists that he has condemned Saddam since the 80's, that he was ahead of everyone else. He insists that he has always been of that opinion, ignoring that this video provides direct evidence that is a lie. But some people might say, however implausible, that a story can be concocted that would explain this video. We are then faced with Galloway's repeated defense of Ahmadinejad anytime anyone on air with him dares suggest that Ahmadinejad has publicly expressed a desire to remove Israel from the map. Galloway becomes indignant and raves about how no reputable scholar in the world backs such an outrageous notion. And yet, if you take five minutes with google video, you can find several public speeches presented by Ahmadinejad rallying crowds to cheers of "Death to Israel". Galloway can not be ignorant of this, he is a willful liar, apologist and propagandist, and his record is unmistakable.

ohhh k.
you seem to have me mistaken for someone that's agreeing with galloway.

when in fact, my first statement about him was "yeah, galloway's clearly backpedaling..."

you scoffed at the idea that he was being offered a "tricky question".
i explain further, exactly how it was a bit dodgy from a journalistic point of view, and your response is? ... to ignore anything i said, don't respond to it, and continue your rant.

so, enjoy your first sift. cya.

in my book, if you constantly deny something you said officially and proudly on video, i won't really trust anything else you say until you explain yourself.

I agree with a lot of what Galloway says, but coming out of the same mouth as "Saddam, you're doin a heckuva job"... i dunno. It's bullshit that he isn't called on this everywhere he goes.

so he met with barberic leaders of country with millions of inhabitants who were among other things suffering from medical need, thanks to sanctions from the west. did you guys know rumsfeld was a ceo of the the french weapon-producer that sold saddam the gas which he used to gas the kurds, at the time the french sold him the gas!!!!!!!amazing stuff. we, the masses, are so stupid, these guys can get away with whatever....the game is so rigged.

>> ^dead_tofu:
so he met with barberic leaders of country with millions of inhabitants who were among other things suffering from medical need, thanks to sanctions from the west. did you guys know rumsfeld was a ceo of the the french weapon-producer that sold saddam the gas which he used to gas the kurds, at the time the french sold him the gas!!!!!!!amazing stuff. we, the masses, are so stupid, these guys can get away with whatever....the game is so rigged.


But you don't see the American's denying the role they played with Saddam in the 80's. And for the record, most of the Arab world supported him then too. But by the 90's the American's changed their position on him. Meanwhile Galloway to this day insists in a loud voice that he has always condemned Saddam and held him in contempt. Unfortunately for him, youtube has made that bold faced lying plain for the world to see. The problem hasn't been Galloway's visit per se, it's his insistence that his opposition to both Iraq wars is in spite of his contempt for Saddam. The thing is the truth of the matter is that Galloway is not anti-war. He's not even Anti-America. He's pro-Saddam, and pointing out the difference is more than just splitting hairs.

*beg

Sorry, I'm stubborn

Begging is only available for videos in your personal queue - ignoring beg request by bcglorf.

What a despicable little Quisling. I don't care if his nothing-to-lose rhetorical technique provides some spectacle, he just gives me the creeps.

It's called politics. Sometimes praising the representative of a country doesn't actually mean you like them.

That said, history will remember Saddam for the good he did as well as the bad. Infrastructure, child literacy, secularisation, women's rights, healthcare and economic growth. Iraq turned into a shithole thanks to international sanctions, not his leadership. Jesus, you fuck one goat / gas a few Kurds...

It's called politics. Sometimes praising the representative of a country doesn't actually mean you like them.

Which would have been a viable explanation. To this day though Galloway insists he wasn't even addressing Saddam, but the Iraqi people. Clearly from this video, that explanation is a lie.


Iraq turned into a shithole thanks to international sanctions, not his leadership.


I take it that is in jest, right?

Probably he doesn't want to tell his potential voters, "Well duh, I'm a POLITICIAN, I was LYING."

>> ^gorillaman:
Probably he doesn't want to tell his potential voters, "Well duh, I'm a POLITICIAN, I was LYING."


That does not explain why he also insisted that Kuwait was part of the Iraqi motherland. That does not explain why he also insists on defending Ahmadenijad from every accusation that he hates Israel. Nor does it explain his insistence that it was the world's sanctions, and not Saddam's actions that forced those sanctions, which was responsible for the plight of the Iraqi people under Saddam.

Not Saddam's fault the UN decided to starve his people to get to him. This isn't the middle ages; the sanctions on Iraq and the deaths they caused are unjustifiable.

>> ^gorillaman:
Not Saddam's fault the UN decided to starve his people to get to him. This isn't the middle ages; the sanctions on Iraq and the deaths they caused are unjustifiable.


Agreed, but what made the sanctions necessary? Saddam gassing his own people, Saddam invading and annexing his neighbors, and Saddam pursuing nuclear weapons. All of Saddam's actions were equally unjustifiable, and the blame is not on the world, but on Saddam for forcing it's hand. The world's shame is that they did too little, not that sanctions were too much.

This is a guy who was essentially a warlord, but an incredibly progressive one. So you contain the worst of his excesses while rewarding his good behaviour. You don't destroy his country to prove a point.

That said, history will remember Saddam for the good he did as well as the bad. Infrastructure, child literacy, secularisation, women's rights, healthcare and economic growth.

This is a guy who was essentially a warlord, but an incredibly progressive one.


I'm sorry, but no. You attribute secularisation to Saddam's credit, but I don't think many call brutal repression of religious freedoms a positive. Listing child literacy and women's rights just astounds me. I needn't point out the wonderful benefits that were enjoyed by women and children unfortunate enough to be Kurds. If Infrastructure and economic improvements are enough to redeem a monster, then Hitler did them even better than Saddam.

Saddam wasn't a progressive warlord. He was a cruel, warmongering dictator progressively becoming worse and worse. The number of reining dictators in the world who can be said to have used chemical weapons on their own people to commit genocide, and who had sufficient military strength to successfully annex a sovereign UN member is a short one. Saddam era Iraq was described by Iraqis as "a mass concentration camp above ground and a mass grave beneath".

To say Saddam was 'a really bad man, but' is to completely misunderstand the situation. The context of calling his actions brutal is not that he would have those opposing him executed. It isn't even forcing their loved ones to watch. It is forcing them to not only watch, but applaud the execution of their loved ones that dared oppose him. It's with extremely good reason that Hitchen's strong anti-war stance was radically altered by his visits to Iraq to actually speak with the people there.

George Galloway has more integrity than any british politician of the last twenty years.

The Iraq sanctions led to the deaths of over half a million children and Galloway was the ONLY man speaking out against it.

The ONLY man. The ONLY MAN speaking out against it. The only man STILL speaking out against it.

George Galloway has more integrity than any british politician of the last twenty years.
The ONLY man. The ONLY MAN speaking out against it. The only man STILL speaking out against it.


It's almost enough to make you want to cry. Where oh where will George find another man like Saddam to work together on human rights with. When will the world learn!

The most brutal repression occurred as a direct result of the destabilisation of Iraq caused by international interference. What else can a warlord do but crack down on dissenters?

The bulk of Saddam's political opponents weren't supporting western-style democracy; they wanted to topple a comparatively secular government and replace it with an Islamic theocracy. His efforts to hold Iraq together may have been vicious, but they weren't entirely without merit.

Of course you protect sovereign nations from aggression, of course you oppose genocide, but look at Saddam in the context of contemporary Middle-Eastern rulers and you see a dictator at least moving his country in the right direction.

Of course you protect sovereign nations from aggression, of course you oppose genocide, but look at Saddam in the context of contemporary Middle-Eastern rulers and you see a dictator at least moving his country in the right direction.


I didn't realize that annexing their neighbors and genocide counted as the 'right direction' for contemporary Middle-Eastern rulers. I think that may be where our opinions differ.