Sadly Galloway isn't somebody you really want on your side IMHO. He's a blatant liar and propagandist for the worst dictators in the world. For all the condemnations that Israel deserves, Galloway lobbying for the Palestinians helps them as much as Bush helped McCain by putting his support behind him. There are some people who's help you just don't want.

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!

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.

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

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?

The defining moment of this debate is here:

HITCHENS: But let’s say that we take his word for it. It means that when he went—having said that he thought that Kuwait was part of the Iraqi motherland—to greet Saddam Hussein in 1994 in Iraq and to salute him for his courage and his indefatigability.

GEORGE GALLOWAY: That’s another lie. You’re lying again. Your nose is growing.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: He went—and to take his side again, it meant that he went in foot on his own evidence. He went in full knowledge of the fact that he was dealing with a murderer and a monster and a dictator. So the pit of exculpation that you attempt to dig, Mr. Galloway, has just swallowed you up and the record will show it.

And after this Galloway flounders and appears unusually taken aback. Enough so that he stumbles around with a point he already made and was refuted on earlier:
GALLOWAY: But you opposed the war in 1991 in the full knowledge of what had happened at Halabja just three years before. You’re the one who went on television denouncing President Bush for his plan to invade and destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein.

And the reason for this is both men know of the existence of this video of Galloway's 1994 visit to Saddam. It is, verbatim:
"Sir, I salute your courage, your strength your indefatigability. 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 that is exactly what Hitchens was referring to by "Mr. Galloway, has just swallowed you up and the record will show it". Hitchens baited Galloway into trumpeting one of his favorite lies, and did it such that there can be no mistake that Galloway is knowingly and intentionally lying about his actual opinions of Saddam.

Yeah, it's a dupe of my vid.

*discard

Sorry about that, I know what a pain in the arse it is to do a 12-part custom player.

The defining moment of this debate is here:

HITCHENS: But let’s say that we take his word for it. It means that when he went—having said that he thought that Kuwait was part of the Iraqi motherland—to greet Saddam Hussein in 1994 in Iraq and to salute him for his courage and his indefatigability.

GEORGE GALLOWAY: That’s another lie. You’re lying again. Your nose is growing.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: He went—and to take his side again, it meant that he went in foot on his own evidence. He went in full knowledge of the fact that he was dealing with a murderer and a monster and a dictator. So the pit of exculpation that you attempt to dig, Mr. Galloway, has just swallowed you up and the record will show it.

And after this Galloway flounders and appears unusually taken aback. Enough so that he stumbles around with a point he already made and was refuted on earlier:
GALLOWAY: But you opposed the war in 1991 in the full knowledge of what had happened at Halabja just three years before. You’re the one who went on television denouncing President Bush for his plan to invade and destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein.

And the reason for this is both men know of the existence of this video of Galloway's 1994 visit to Saddam. It is, verbatim:
"Sir, I salute your courage, your strength your indefatigability. 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 that is exactly what Hitchens was referring to by "Mr. Galloway, has just swallowed you up and the record will show it". Hitchens baited Galloway into trumpeting one of his favorite lies, and did it such that there can be no mistake that Galloway is knowingly and intentionally lying about his actual opinions of Saddam.

Galloway defends himself in this clip saying: "Y-O-U-R is a reference to the Iraqi people", he is saying that he is being misquoted from when he spoke to Saddam in Iraq and that he was addressing the Iraqi people, not Saddam personally.
This is a bold faced lie. As linked already by BoneyD you can see the clip of him addressing Saddam here. His words are verbatim:
"Sir, I salute your courage, your strength your indefatigability. 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."

He starts off by addressing Saddam with "Sir" then goes on to specify Saddam, not the people of Iraq, with "hoping to meet with yourself".

George Galloway went to Iraq in 1994 and conveyed "heartfelt fraternal greetings and support" to Saddam. This clip is not him taking the journalists to task, it his him making bold face lies.

>> ^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.

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.

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.

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.

>> ^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.