The Rt. Dishonourable George Galloway was in the news again this weekend, this time for comments he made in an interview with GQ magazine (question to GQ: why?) stating that it would be “morally justified” to assassinate Tony Blair and that it would be morally equivalent to Blair “ordering” Iraqi deaths. Not that GG would personally favour such an action, you understand:
“Such an operation would be counterproductive because it would just generate a new wave of anti-Muslim, anti-Arab sentiment whipped up by the press. It would lead to new draconian anti-terror laws, and would probably strengthen the resolve of the British and American services in Iraq rather than weaken it.”
So basically, he doesn’t advocate the assassination of democratically elected leaders on the basis that it would be bad PR.
Speaking of draconian, Galloway subsequently defended his comments from Cuba, where he has been schmoozing with Fidel Castro, the unelected dictator who personally oversees the dismal totalitarian communist regime that his nation’s 11.3 million inhabitants are forced to endure. This communist dystopia where opposition parties are forbidden, basic human rights are ignored and pro-democracy campaigners are thrown into prison for life is so often held up as a beacon of 'working socialism'. Never understood that one at all. Just because of the state-funded health and education system provided by the bankrupt (ideologically and economically) government? Wowee.
Yet another great example of leftists taking sides with monsters (I’m saying that Galloway is the leftist and Castro is the monster here – although there’s a strong case for the reverse also). Galloway, of course, has a well documented track record in this area. He has described Castro as the living person he most admires, but of course it wasn’t that long ago he was giving Saddam Hussein and his butcher sons colonic irrigation with his tongue and fingers. Combine all this with his appearance on Celebrity Big Brother earlier this year and the evidence is more overwhelming than ever: there is no barrel this man will not scrape, no backside he will not kiss, no indignity he will not endure as long as he is in the public eye.
Equally atrocious were the recent comments of London’s very own fuckwit-in-chief Ken Livingstone who, on a visit to Beijing in April this year, compared the Tiananmen Square massacre to the Poll Tax riots. Contemptible. More recently, courtesy of Mayor Ken, we have been subjected to a visit from bandit-turned-socialist, self-styled saviour of Venezuela Hugo Chávez (it wasn’t an official state visit either – our esteemed mayor arranged and passed the cost onto us lucky taxpayers). Chávez was received by a drooling mass of soft-headed admirers at London’s City Hall. Why? As far as I can tell, for little reason other than the fact that he nationalised his country’s oil industry and hates George Bush. Chávez, like Castro, presents a ‘man of the people’ image whilst simultaneously crushing dissent and free expression in the name of socialist revolution. He also considers Robert Mugabe to be an ‘ally’ and a 'true freedom fighter'. Enough said.
Why do the hard left laud these tyrants? Castro, Chávez, Che Guevara, Lenin. As role models go, this lot are no better than Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin or Pol Pot.