Greg Palast on Galloway's credibility in the US anti-war movement

Posted in Pete's blog on ,

Greg Palast has recently sent this response to our Open Letter to Tony Benn.

Dear Pete,

Just a few thoughts of my own and a bit of a correction. I don't know if, as my brilliant Iraq research chief says, your group's article "encapsulates" all my thoughts. I don't know all the facts, but it does seem you've done a heck of a lot of hard and valuable work deconstructing fake "causes" like support for a war criminal such as Tariq Aziz.

As someone who went to jail during the Seventies protesting the criminality of Nixon and Kissinger, I find it embarrassing that anyone calling themselves "Left" could flippantly support Saddam's monstrous Kissinger, Tariq Aziz who, with his Westernized upper-class manners and habits, charms us out of the fact that he was point-man, if not strategist, for murder of Kurds and other Iraqis by the thousands.

Today, American progressives demand Republicans denounce the criminal and immoral behavior of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney -- which I've worked hard to expose. We cannot hope to support our positions if we morally mirror the Right.

This is difficult road. I'm obviously taking a lot of heat from some misguided Leftists regarding my expose of Galloway. And it is true that some progressive news outlets have blacklisted me. But thankfully, they are few and tiny. It turns out that one radio host who decided to block my broadcasts because "Palast is a Zionist" was himself removed from the Pacifica Radio Network stations for his Stalinist love of censorship. I am now banned from his tiny show and it matters not.

It is a great irony that my investigations of Galloway began in 2003 when I DEFENDED him on Channel 4 television. I sought additional material from Galloway and other sources to bolster that defense and to my surprise, found more that damned him than supported him. As a journalist, I could not bury the findings.

The good news: following my notes, most American progressives distanced themselves from him and his book tour collapsed (sales, I'm told, of only a thousand copies). The major Left radio network, Pacifica, offered Galloway a chance to debate or challenge me on air. He hid.

The sad tale of George G ended on September 24 when I spoke at the giant Washington anti-war rally, covered nationally, along with Cindy Sheehan whose son was killed in Iraq. Sheehan is America's principal anti-war spokesperson. Mr. Galloway was not given an invitation to speak ... so he was relegated to a pathetic rump rally which his fringe sponsors boosted by claiming Sheehan would speak there with him. She told me that she would make no such appearance.

Therefore, I don't want to give the impression that the US progressive and anti-war movements have lost their minds. We were all charmed by Mr. Galloway's attack on the craven Republican senators who voted for the war; but once Americans know a bit more about the man, interest in him withered.

Greg Palast

New York

To view Greg's articles go to http://www.gregpalast.com

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 30/10/2005 - 15:05

"We were all charmed..."

We were all suckered, he means. The dope on Galloway has been out there for years and yet it was wilfully ignored by the Anti-War movement (and Palast) as long as Galloway was providing a platform. By Palast's own admission he defended a man who he knew lamentably little about. So what was his expertise, exactly? That he's able to determine the facts _after_ he misrepresents them on television?

Only the impending threat of his trail and imprisonment has forced this revision -- which has happened in Palast's case over the last few weeks, not years as he implies with his dropped-date of 2003. I suspect he finally woke up and read what Hitchens was saying.

Submitted by Pete on Sun, 30/10/2005 - 16:02

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

Yes, the facts about Galloway have been out there a long time. And we, at Workers Liberty, have been drawing attention to them since at least 1994, see this. From the days when Galloway was a nice middle-of-the-road, ex-Stalinist, Labour MP, like so many of the Blairites today.

I don't know what our anonymous commenter (or for that matter Hitchens) was doing at the time to expose Galloway, perhaps he can tell us.

Our commenter's record may be squeaky clean, but I know many of the pro-war elements didn't say anything against Galloway as long as he didn't get in the way of their plans to make the Labour Party clean of socialists.

As for Greg Palast, he doesn't need me to defend him. Even less does he need to be defended from the likes of Hitchens and his followers.

Galloway should be shunned and ostracised by the genuine democratic anti-occupation left. But those who claim to be 'left' whilst supporting the occupation, need to tell us why they are so comparatively silent about their allies in the occupation... and their earlier support for Saddam's former dictatorship... and their toleration of US atrocities.

It would be interesting to see if Hitchens (or his commenting supporter above) could explain why Galloway should be untouchable as an ally, but Rumsfeldt and Bush aren't. We kind of think they all stink!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 30/10/2005 - 18:54

In reply to by Pete

I assure you Hitchens has opposed Galloway for years (many years, I think, before you) and was calling attention to his hypocricy at the times of his visits to Saddam around since the early 90s, soon after the invasion of Kuwait and the first Gulf War. (These have been my opinions throughout that time also. ) Hitchens certainly made comment at this time, but I don't believe your blog was running at that time, so perhaps you could direct me to your other writings on the subject. Alternatively if you do not know about this period in history, you may educate yourself by using google.

I won't play moral relativity games with in your comparison of Galloway to Bush, Rumsfeld, Hitler, whoever, or respond to your category slur of me as a "Hitchens supporter." Address the facts - we are talking about Galloway: He is a crook and a stooge and he suckered Palast, and many in the whole Anti-War movement, because they are desperate for someone with balls to stand up to Bush. Right now it looks like the best they've got is Cindy Sheehan.

Submitted by Pete on Sun, 30/10/2005 - 19:23

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

I doubt Hitchens could ever have been more vocal in opposing Galloway than us. Having been subjected to libel actions because of what we said in our press about him for years - before blogs or even the World Wide Web existed.
You want people to learn from Hitchens but object to being called a Hitchens supporter. Well, whatever. But you evade my point, unsurprisingly.
Yes, Galloway may well be a crooke and a stooge etc.
Yes, he has fooled many decent people who are rightly repulsed by the foreign ambitions of the right wing republican administration.
But what about the people who try to fool people:
1) that the US and UK launched the war because they oppose the sort of semi-fascist regime that Saddam ran;
2) that the occupation can be trusted and has the primary intention of bringing democracy to Iraq.
Both the Galloways and the Rumsfeldts of this world should be opposed.
We opposed the war and oppose the occupation - we regard it as our duty to warn people away from opponents of democracy like Galloway who might be confused with us.
Why don't you differentiate yourself from, and attack those, anti-democrats on your side? Why do you applaud Blair's alliance with such people? Or if you oppose this alliance, please tell us where.
If you don't, then your marriage of convenience isn't a mile apart from that of the SWP and STWs.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 04/11/2005 - 21:51

In reply to by Pete

And if it wasn't obvious enough...oh look. The government anti-terror bill passes by a single vote. Oh look. There was no Mr.Galloway. What was he doing again? Ah yes, making money...

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.