Galloway - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

Is it naïve to believe that integrity of a man who has “no expectation of justice from a group of Christian fundamentalist and Zionist activists under the chairmanship of a neocon George Bush” [1] could be brought into question by proving he was on Saddam’s payroll?

It is impossible to prove anything of the sort to Galloway and his supporters because all evidence, however sound, will be ‘fabricated’ by ‘neo-cons’ and ‘warmongers’. Even if they accept the evidence is genuine, the supporters of Galloway will have no problem with anyone receiving money from Saddam. For them dictators, however ruthless and blood-handed they may be, are good as long as they are anti-American.

However, there are a lot of those who are still able to tell The Good from The Bad based not on the irrational hatred of all things American but on the arguments put in front of them. It is in their eyes that Galloway will be hurt by the Senate hearing as Richard Waghorne suggested and it is for them we will continue to grind Galloway and the likes of him. So here we go……

This morning, following last night Senate hearing, we had Galloway on Eamon Dunphy’s Breakfast Show. He argued it was wrong to bring sanctions upon Iraqi people just because ‘we’ fell out with a dictator ‘we’ have put in power in the first place. Wow!

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t the absence of UN approval one of the principal arguments against the war in Iraq? Well, the sanctions were indeed blessed by the UN. Why are they wrong then? Or is it that the UN suddenly does not matter? The sanctions killed a lot of children? Even if they did, they were not supposed to because the Oil for Food program was put in place so that the evil dictator would suffer more and the people less. But guess what, this program was ineffective (as if anything the UN has ever done was effective) and abused by corrupted UN officials. Even the son of Kofi Annan was involved himself, apparently without daddy’s knowledge. And were Galloway and some French diplomats involved, this remains to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. So far we know Galloway's business associate was involved and Galloway has yet to condemn his act.

What about Saddam? Was he really wholeheartedly embraced by the same people who toppled him or was he merely a lesser evil supported against a greater evil at some stage of the history (twenty years ago!) and under a completely different set of circumstances? And did ‘we’ put him in power or was it that he killed and continued to kill everyone in his way to become one of the most ruthless and oppressive dictators on the planet? Perhaps CIA did provide intelligence in 1963 to help overthrow general Qasim. Perhaps USA did assist Saddam after he attacked Iran. But does that equal to putting someone in power? And did ‘we’ fall out with Saddam or was it the other way around? Was it when USA attacked Iraq or was it after Iraq attacked Kuwait? Why should Galloway bother with such minute details when USA are always The Bad or at least The Ugly.

At the end, whatever the story with Galloway, all efforts should be focused on fixing Iraq and creating a respectable and democratic country, which will not be a threat to its neighbours and its own citizens. And that is what counts at the end of the day.