Monday, May 29, 2006

Galloway watch and the left's continuing love of tyrants

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.

7 comments:

Sam McNair said...

You are way off - see below

Galloway responds to Blair ‘assassination’ row
26/05/2006

“Like the Prime Minister’s wife commenting on suicide bombings in Israel I understand why such desperate acts take place and why those involved might believe such actions are morally justifiable.

"From the point of view of someone who has seen their country invaded and their family blown apart it’s possible, of course, for them to construct a moral justification. But I’ve made my position clear. I would not support anyone seeking to assassinate the Prime Minister. That’s why I said in the interview I would report to the authorities any such plot that I knew of."

“What I did make abundantly clear to Piers Morgan in the GQ interview is that I would like to see Tony Blair in front of a war crimes tribunal for sending this country to war illegally and for the appalling human consequences which resulted. That’s what I will continue to press for”.

* George Galloway, Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow

Nav said...

Well he's back tracking now, because that's not what he originally said. I guess when his friends at the Stop The War Coalition distanced themselves from his comments, he realized he'd gone too far.

Citizen Sane said...

Sam - I'm not sure what your quotation is meant to be establishing really. I'm already familiar with GG's 'justification', and there's nothing new to me in what you've posted.

My point was really to dwell on the irony of Galloway defending his actions from Cuba as the guest of a dictator. And to wonder, again, why so much of the left is enamoured by the unelected and the corrupt.

tafka PP said...

colonic irrigation with his tongue and fingers.

- I for one am very glad that your broadband got fixed for commentary of such calibre.

Devil's Advocate said...

I think the answer lies in the fact that, as you stated, both Chavez and Castro hate Bush. What they're like themselves is of little or no significance to Livingstone and Galloway.

Remember who invited Gerry Adams to London in the 80's at the height of IRA violence? It was good old man of the people, Red Ken. Once again his justification being Adams et al's hatred for Thatcher was more important than all the atrocities they committed in the name of Republicanism.

Neil Kinnock is not a man I wish to quote from often, but he once said this: "There's only one thing Ken Livingstone is interested in, and that's Ken Livingstone".

DA

H said...

Questioning who "the Left" are, who are in love with these monsters. Do you mean Ken and GG love monsters - that I can understand. Do they qualify as "Left" because they both come from the Labour party? Or they both claim to be socialists? Your great post more made me question whether there was any point in using the term "Left" anymore?

And while we are at it, let us not forget that "the Right" have supported their fair share of monsters. Where do I start - Reagan's support of Saddam? Most of the Royal Family's support of hitler?

H

Citizen Sane said...

It's not just Ken and GG (although they are prime examples). Witness also the hideous union between the left and Islamic fundamentalists, most prominently characterised in the UK by the Respect 'coalition'. Or the moral equivalence of Noam Chomsky, who opposed the bombing of Kosovo - probably the single most important military intervention for humanitarian purposes in living memory, given that is was solely to stop wholesale slaughter and genocide (of Muslims, ironically enough) – because it was ‘Western imperialism’ or some such rubbish. Ditto Harold Pinter, who I’ve written about before, who actually belonged to an organisation dedicated to proving the innocence of Slobodan Milosevic, yet wants to see George Bush and Tony Blair tried as ‘war criminals’. Or Michael Moore, who compared the murderous jihadists of the Iraq insurgency to the Minutemen of the American revolution.

The reason I keep banging on about this stuff is because I’m somebody who has slowly moved from a left-wing view of the world to something. . . not right wing, but different. Liberal. Pure liberal in the purest sense of the world. And when I see people such as this spouting this bullshit it makes me realise more and more that I have nothing in common with them, and I don’t want to be associated with them at all.

My point is, I’m not surprised when right wingers sympathise with scum. But the left has got its priorities totally the wrong way round now to the point where anything, anything done by the USA or Britain must be wrong because “we are the agents of western hegemony and we are the real oppressors” and blah, blah, blah, fucking blah. Chomsky (a darling of the left, and considered by many to be world’s leading intellectual) actually believes that the foreign policy of the United States is no different to Nazi Germany’s. I simply cannot side with that point of view one little bit.

So when you question “whether there is any point using the term “Left” anymore, I think you’re absolutely right. It’s barely something I can recognise these days. The left has much to be proud of: promoting worker’s rights, advancing sexual and gender equality, a long tradition of resisting fascism and fighting for rights and democracy. But now they’re siding against the West and standing in the same corner as theocratic thugs and murderers who want to take us back (literally) to the dark ages? How and why did this happen?

Phew, that should have been a post in itself. Maybe it will be.

Of course, all is not lost. There is a sliver of hope for the left, a new outlook. Something I hope to write about very soon.