Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Scattypaws
bogwitch

I had to say something about George Galloway...

I've never particularly liked the man, but I have to say he was fantastic up against the US Senate. Utterly gripping to watch.

I want to like him now, but I still don't quite trust him, but is that because of how the media have portrayed him in the past? I don't know. He's obviously a man of principles prepared to fight for them (whether I entirely agree with them and his methods or not).

If he's lying, it's bloody ballsy to go to the US Senate and argue the case like that.

I really hope he isn't.

.
Tags:

  • 1
I have to agree - he comes over as an unpleasant and self-important person, but in this instance I am cheering him all the way.

But do we see him that way because he's extremely single-minded about his goal? I gathered from what he said, that he really didn't care where the money was from, it was where it was going that mattered.

Yeeeeah. I agree to a point. But if it came from oil sales on the back of the oil for food program, isn't that rather defeatest to channel it back into relief from the oil for food program?

Still, even if he is guilty, then I still support him for fighting the hypocracy of some of those in the US government.

*IF* that's what he did, he was using the money for exactly what it was meant for.

But, IMHO, from many years of comparing what politicians say with what they do, I have never seen any politician look more truthful. He had his facts. He wasn't using "weasel" words. He wasn't phrasing things so he could tell the truth without telling the truth. (As much as I admire the man, Bill Clinton was a master at that technique -- and it bit him on the ass.)

It's my understanding that Parliament tends to be more plain spoken than our Congress. We don't have anything like your question thingys. (I forget what it's called exactly.)

But it was certainly refreshing to see Galloway walk into the Senate and call the committee members on their hypocrasy.

If he wants to move to the U.S. I'd be willing to giving him a citizenship. :-)

But, IMHO, from many years of comparing what politicians say with what they do, I have never seen any politician look more truthful. He had his facts. He wasn't using "weasel" words. He wasn't phrasing things so he could tell the truth without telling the truth.

I agree. He didn't look like a liar to me either, but I'm bringing my prior impression of the man to the table. I'm asking myself if that perceoption I had was false, or not. (Probably and combination of both).

It's my understanding that Parliament tends to be more plain spoken than our Congress. We don't have anything like your question thingys.

I wouldn't go that far.

Prime Minister's Question Time tends to be more of a trade of insults than a debate.

If he wants to move to the U.S. I'd be willing to giving him a citizenship

There's a lot of people hear who'd let you keep him. :)



The bloke's got balls, that's for sure.

It was the most entertaining thing I've watched in ages.

He can always be both.

But personally I find his playing the sex, race and religion cards in Bethnal Green & Bow against a black, Jewish woman deeply telling.

I agree. That campaign was nasty, on all sides to varying degrees. It certainly wasn't dignified. Much of that is what I've judged him by. I'm not altogether convinced by his loyalty either.

But, what he displayed yesterday was many traits that I do admire; passion, a willingness to stand up what he believes in, a determination not to be streamrollered by powerful hypocrites, a plain willingness to fight for what you believe is right etc. Had me in tears.

I'm just not sure I totally agree with what he's fighting or his motives though.


Over here, we get used to politicians who concede before the battle even starts. If John Kerry had opposed the war consistently and passionately from the beginning -- as Galloway has -- he would be president. The sane element of society keep losing to the right-wing wackos because we keep compromising -- when we should be drawing a line in the sand. The wing-nuts are immovable and the only thing to counter them with is an irresistable force. We keep saying "we'll give in this time, so we can fight again next time." But if you keep giving in, what's the point?

I realize that certainty of ones own righteousness is likely a result of arrogance. And arrogant people are seldom right about everything -- even if they think they are.

So, I'm not really surprised to hear that Galloway has some nasty bits hidden under that impeccably tailored jacket.

But God I wish we'd had someone like him fighting against the war three years ago and two years ago, and right now. If there had been someone to rally behind before the invasion, maybe we could have stopped it.

I think the government here wish he'd just shut up. He's not particularly well liked here. There's a distinct lack of trust as he appears to be entirely too close to some middle east regimes, whether or not it's all entirely innocent.

I was talking to my mum last night, wondering how Galloway would come over in the US. Thanks for a perspective.

I suspect he wanted to be back in Parliament to get the legal protection, especially re the Yanks. But I am a cynic.

There's always that.

I'm pretty cynical too. If he is innocent, then he could probably do a charm makeover.

I came across it (the article on him in the Senate) and thought it was some liberal's wishful thinking - you know, in the same vein as the PM's speech in Love Actually.

Like you, I'm hoping he's telling the truth and nothing but the truth because... it was brilliant!

You don't expect these things to be entertaining, but it really was.

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account