« How Much is INDC Journal Worth? | Main | YEAH! »

The most relevant analysis of George Galloway's recent troubles can only come from the fascist advocate's dogged bete noir, Christopher Hitchens:

Just before my last exchange with George Galloway, which occurred on the set of Bill Maher's show in Los Angeles in mid-September, I was approached by a representative of the program and asked if I planned to repeat my challenge to Galloway on air. That challenge—would he sign an affidavit saying that he had never discussed Oil-for-Food monies with Tariq Aziz?—I had already made on a public stage in New York. Maher's producers had been asked, obviously by a nervous Galloway, to find out whether I had brought such an affidavit along with me. I replied that this was not necessary, since his public denial to me was on the record and had been broadcast, and since it further confirmed the apparent perjury that he had committed in front of the U.S. Senate on May 17, 2005. I added that I wanted no further contact with Galloway until I could have the opportunity of reviewing his prison diaries.

That day has now been brought measurably closer by the publication of the report of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. This report, which comes with a vast archive of supporting material, was embargoed until 10 p.m. Monday and contains the "smoking gun" evidence that Galloway, along with his wife and his chief business associate, were consistent profiteers from Saddam Hussein's regime and its criminal exploitation of the "Oil for Food" program.

Hitchens examines the details of the new evidence and Galloway's various denials in the rest of the piece. Also notable is this graph:

Yet this is the man who received wall-to-wall good press for insulting the Senate subcommittee in May, and who was later the subject of a fawning puff piece in the New York Times, and who was lionized by the anti-war movement when he came on a mendacious and demagogic tour of the country last month. I wonder if any of those who furnished him a platform will now have the grace to admit that they were hosting a man who is not just a pimp for fascism but one of its prostitutes as well.

(Emphasis mine)

As a flashback to another example of the Washington Post Express's ridiculous anti-war bias, recall their narrative for Galloway's testimony back in May (representative of many Western outlets):

The other day, the "Express" version of the Post, which is handed out at various Metro stations as a commuter read, had an interesting headline describing George Galloway's testimony before the Senate regarding his bribery implication in the Oil-For-Food scandal.

Was it, "British Lawmaker Questioned for Iraq Bribery Ties?" Nope.

How about "UK MP Denies Pre-War Bribery Charges?" Nope.

It was something like (paraphrasing)...

"Lawmakers Rebuked Over Iraq."

As in, the lead was that the criminally charged British MP flew to Washington, DC in order to lecture our Senators for their decision to go to war. What an astonishing choice of headline.

Posted by Bill at October 26, 2005 08:55 AM | TrackBack (6)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.indcjournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/dafrules/tapaz.cgi/2081

Comments

Posted by: Uncle Jimbo at October 26, 2005 12:20 PM

Posted by: killer killdeer at October 27, 2005 04:04 PM

Posted by: apartments warsaw at October 5, 2006 07:24 PM

Posted by: viagra gum at November 13, 2006 01:20 PM

Posted by: viagra viagra at November 13, 2006 10:18 PM

Posted by: buy viagra at November 17, 2006 08:45 AM

Posted by: viagra online at November 17, 2006 08:08 PM

Posted by: cblxzag saozhrnbp at January 11, 2007 01:29 PM

Posted by: Cellphone at April 11, 2007 11:30 PM

Posted by: Humberto Withrow at April 16, 2007 07:23 AM

Posted by: Humberto Withrow at April 16, 2007 07:23 AM

Posted by: Humberto Withrow at April 16, 2007 07:24 AM

Posted by: Kent Dolan at April 16, 2007 04:44 PM

Posted by: Kent Dolan at April 16, 2007 04:45 PM