As a progressive I've been quite critical of Galloway over the years for pandering the most reactionary elements of the muslim comunitty and supporting thugish dictatorships in the Arab world. On the question of Palestine though he has been entirely consistent and moral. I watched this clip yesterday where he absolutely brings it to the Sky News reporter, undermining her bias at every single point. This clip made my day perhaps you'll enjoy it as well

http://tinyurl.com/mjb54

Posted by Ahmed at August 11, 2006 12:08 PM

Dear Woodrow, It is far out for you to attempt to equate Great Britain parlimentarians with US Democrats. Not picking on you, but your attitude of I'm right every time, and every body that doesn't totally agree with me is wrong, certainly make the hair on my neck stand up. May I ask what in the world is your agenda? Do you truly believe that dubu was appointed by God instead of the Supreme court? There is no room in your mind for the teeniest possibility that dubu had had an agenda thet he didn't tell you about? Do you, in your heart of hearts believe that the Iraqis are better off in their wrecked homes, in danger from their Sunni/Sheite neighbors?
Do you think that they look at our soldiers as deliverers? Do you think that even the most altruistic view of Iraq will ever see a representative form of
government? A last word, don't you dare say that I am against our soldiers, I support them mightily, I was one of them from 9/1943 to 6/1946. I served 30 months in Europe. I know soldiers, I know there are good ones and bad ones. I also know that being in a war zone always stresses ones morality

Posted by James Melbert at August 11, 2006 12:22 PM

"We certainly cannot keep and elect representatives who are respected by terrorists to be entrusted with protecting us from them."

You'd think that with GM and Woody's historical record on this issue theyworldbea little more timid about smearing others with the charge of supporting terrorism. Wasn't it rumfeld who shook hands with Saddam Hussein. Didnt we provide him with masive arms shipments at the very time his government was comitting by far its worst atroacities. Have we not historically propped up the Saudies and used Wahhabism as a sort of buffer against secular nationalism wich, during the Cold War, was seen as a threat to our interest in the region and our ability to extract oil. Who overthrew the secular nationalist regime of Mossedegh installing a brutal US puppet in its place in Iran? I ask these questions so we can come to terms with history, understand how we got here and be in a better place stop the violence. As for the Reagan goverments comlicity with religious fanatics ill cede the floor to Juan Cole

In fact, of course, Ronald Reagan bears substantial responsibility for September 11. He and his administration were so gung ho to roll back Communism that they funneled billions of dollars to scruffy far rightwing radical Muslim mujahidin in Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Orrin Hatch even flew to Beijing for Reagan in 1985 to ask the Chinese to pressure Pakistan to allow the US to provide the Mujahidin with ever more sophisticated weaponry. Even the Pakistani military had initially balked at this crazy idea, knowing who the Gulbuddin Hikmatyars and Usama Bin Ladens really were (unlike clueless Reagan, who called them freedom fighters). But the US twisted the Pakistanis’ arms, and they gave in. Likewise, Reagan forced the timid Saudis to match US contributions to the Mujahidin. (And then after Sept. 11 the former Reagan officials who had twisted the arms of the Saudis, like Richard Perle, turned around and blamed Riyadh for spreading radical Muslim ideas!!) It was the CIA that first established terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan, to hit the leftist government in Kabul. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the camps used by al-Qaeda had been built originally by the Reagan administration.

I didn’t know that the US government was more enthusiastic about the Mujahideen than Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

The Christian Coalition and other rightwing religious groups supporting Reagan even had a “biblical checklist� by which they wanted all senators and congressmen to be judged. And one of the items in the “biblical checklist� was “support for the Afghan ‘freedom fighters.’ The rightwing Christians were saying in the 1980s that if you didn’t support al-Qaeda and its Mujahidin allies, you didn’t deserve to be in Congress!

Posted by Ahmed at August 11, 2006 03:01 PM

Several comments:

1) George Galloway on Palestine: consistent - yes; moral - no. However, a discussion on Palestine would wipe out GM's bandwidth. An offline discussion could be interesting, though.

2) It is unfair to link Democrats to Galloway using this faulty syllogism of terrorist respect. Not everyone who my enemy views as their friend is necessarily my enemy, just as not everyone my enemy views as their enemy is necessarily my friend. Leaders need to be examined on the basis of their own words and actions.

3) As Ahmed and James have pointed out, U.S. policy in the past may well have strengthened the organization of Islamists groups (see my last sentence). We certainly have seen ill consequences from our previous machinations in the Middle East/Asia arena. What is more difficult it to assess the consequences of not acting. Any legitimate assessment does have to look at both sides of the expression (which I do think you two have done).

In any case, the problem is not that the U.S. has dirty hands; in a world such as ours where most do not share our values, there's no way that the U.S. could somehow remain virginal, unspotted by the world. We have had to make very unpleasant choices. Nevertheless, the U.S. can still hold to high principles; we become hyprocrites when we deny that we have dirty hands. Too often, though, "world opinion" is a hall of mirrors.

Posted by civil truth at August 11, 2006 04:11 PM

Civil truth here's a horrific look at "our values" in practice.

http://tinyurl.com/my4x8

That this barbarity is supported and sponsored by our own administration is not only a stain on all of us but it increases the possiblity that new organisations will arise seeking revenge. I want to get out of this cycle

Posted by Ahmed at August 11, 2006 04:25 PM

I want to get out of this cycle

Most of us want the same thing. However, there's a tiny minority that's capable of driving this thing on forever (or at least until there's no longer any oil in the Middle East.)

Posted by e. nonee moose at August 12, 2006 06:24 AM

There is no room in your mind for the teeniest possibility that dubu had had an agenda thet he didn't tell you about?

I don't think anyone knows what W's real agenda is... not even Woody. Heck, maybe not even W! :)

Posted by e. nonee moose at August 12, 2006 06:26 AM

I think that Civil Truth was on track when he wrote: We certainly have seen ill consequences from our previous machinations in the Middle East/Asia arena. What is more difficult it to assess the consequences of not acting.

This problem between the Jews and Arabs started with Abraham, so I don't know if what Reagan did or didn't do would be anything other than a minor footnote in the history of the conflict between the groups.

Our primary objective back then, though, was to overcome a correctly named "evil empire," one that had nuclear missiles aimed at every major American city. If there were other consequences in our actions to win the cold war, they weren't as apparent or important as that at the time.

I didn't hear liberals back then decrying Reagan's actions as something that could lead to worldwide terrorism. Most liberals view history with 20:20 hindsight rather than a view of the knowledge at that moment in time of history.

* * *

Ahmed, it's funny how you can view the video of Galloway and come away with conclusions different than mine. I'm not saying that I'm right and that you're wrong, but that we can be honest and still analyze and view the exact same things differently. In one respect, you're closer to the situation and might have personal knowledge and emotional feelings that I don't. On the other hand, since I can view this from a distance with no ax to grind, really, maybe my assessments are more objective.

It's like watching an umpire call balls and strikes. If your team is up to bat, then the umpire calls too many strikes that should have been balls; but, when the other team is up to bat, he calls balls when they should have been strikes. The only person who knows for sure is the umpire who has the best vantage point and no biases as to who wins or loses.

* * *

James, I didn't compare Parliament to U.S. Democrats. I offered the possibility that one member of parliament in particular might be like many Democrats--so many of whom seem to hate Bush more than fear terrorists.

Several people have raised the reverse possibility that that they hate Bush because he fights terrorists, who are "putting us in our place and bringing us down a notch." I hate to say it, but I think that is the case with many on campuses and on the far left.

I don't know your feelings on soldiers except from what you say. However, being in an organization or, in this case, the military in which one was drafted, doesn't mean that that person will be a life-long supporter. As evidence, consider John Kerry.

As far as agenda from "W" goes, it's amazing to me that some (and I'm thinking of reg in particular) view actions from the right at face value because they consider them simpletons; and, yet others consider that there is a deeper and more sinister agenda when it suits them today. The left can't have it both ways.

Posted by Woody at August 12, 2006 11:30 AM

"This problem between the Jews and Arabs started with Abraham"

I've argued repeatedly that the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelies is, at its core, about land and resources, dipossesion and competing narratives. Yes it also involves British colonial policy, superpower politics and to a cetain extent religion (although its often forgetten that 20 per cent of palestinian arabs are chriatian, they live under a military occupation as well) but attempts to mystify the conflict with references to Abraham should be seen as a total sham. As for your history its pretty suspect. As much as there is a narrative of conflict between jews and muslims there is also stories and a history of coexistence. In fact at a time when anti semitism wqs genocidal throughout christian europe,the arab world was far more hospitalbe to jews. After Jews were forced to either flee or be converted in spain, after the reconquest, many jews went ot live in the arab world. They were welcome under the ottomans. More so under Mulsim rule in Spain, Jews occupied very high position within the ruling government and were allowed to practice their religion far more freely then was the case after muslims and jews were both banished. The most genocidal currents of anti semitism were often occuaring at times when jewish communities thrived in the middle east and coexisted wit htheir muslim neighbours. The palestine regime was made up of jewish, mulsim and chritian arabs who fought together agianst facism. Im not sure why woody negates this history. This is not, of course, to say that anti semitism hasnt thrived in the Arab world, we've seen it in the past we see it today, but insteasd what im trying to offer is a more historical way of looking at how we got here and demystifying absolutely stupid, ahistorical statements like the conflict with Israel started with Abraham therefore lets not talk about current and past forms of ethnic cleansing and dispossesion. As for Galloway I think its fairly obvious thta youre pretty much on board with the MUrdoch, Fox, sky news perpective which galloway (who im no huge fan of) absolutely shred to pieces. Listen, i come at this issue from a cetain perspective based on my understanding of the history as well as my own morlity which i would like to think is predicated on coexistence and humanism as well as social justice for all people. Surely that gives me a bias but to suggest that youre a more neutral observer, is, for me based on reading your stuff, quite absurd

Posted by Ahmed at August 12, 2006 01:15 PM

Ahmed, clearly you have a more in depth understanding of this issue than I would admit to having, and I certainly didn't mean to to "mystify the conflict with references to Abraham." I think that is the origin of the conflict, but that is not what keeps it raging.

It's like the feud between the Hatfield's and McCoy's. Someone started it somewhere, but the surviving generations of the families didn't care where it started. Instead, they looked at what had been done to them and in their time, and they intended to be the ones to finish it--and that didn't mean with a handshake.

On this issue, we both have different advantages. In my opinion, you have more information and I have no conflict of interests. We just need to get the two together.

You raise good points.

Posted by Woody at August 12, 2006 02:54 PM

"Ahmed, clearly you have a more in depth understanding of this issue than I would admit to having"

Well, i appreaciate the tone of your remarks and the fact that we've been able to have a civil and plesant discussion. Thing is, if by your own admission, you dont know too much about say the Palestinian/Israeli conflict then it strikes me as perculiar that you guys post so much about it. Why, then, the "I stand with Israel" stuff on the far right side. Why do you attempt to taint someone with my opinions- which are nuanced, guided by my understanding of history and fueled by a desire for peace, reconciliation and justice- as soe sort of appeaser or supporter of raging jihadism. This strikes me as odd. I ask these questions rhetorically. I know that you could reply with a long tiresome speech about western civilisation, barbarism, "pallywood" all that jazz. I've heard it before so just save me the trouble.

Posted by Ahmed at August 12, 2006 09:26 PM

Ahmed, let me clarify: You have a more in depth understanding of the historical events behind this issue...not necessarily a better understandng of current events (even though you might)--and, you still have a bias that I don't. One doesn't have to be a mideast expert to understand who are the terrorists and who started the current battles.

I didn't realize that I was trying to taint someone looking for peace--but, maybe we mainly disagree as to how it should be obtained. I value your contribution, from which I can take information to adjust my views--but, not necessarily come to the same conclusion as you.

Posted by Woody at August 13, 2006 08:53 AM