What's wrong with Franken?

[zoeb]

I listened to a lot of righty talk shows today and no one touched the Galloway story...or maybe they got the memo that said don't talk about it but I did expect Franken to use it on his show today. I finished my route about 2:15, 2 hours into Franken's show, and no mention of Galloway. When I returned to my car to go home at 2:50 I hear Galloway's testimony. They dumbass had three hours to attack a Repuke congress with Galloway's testimony and he decides his pissing contest with Bill O'liely was more important.

BOR might be right about AAR not making it in the market when your stinking host wants use the air time for personal attacks. Franken needs to get a grip or better yet a program director. He takes a lead story, uses it at the end of his show for what? Filler? Your basic journalism student knows better than that. BOR is crashing and burning as we speak. He has lost over a million viewers since the falafel incident. Give it a rest already. Save the BOR attacks for another day. He could have trashed them and trashed them and trashed them and he blew it! Blew it! Blew it!

The difference between Franken and a SUCCESSFUL, fat, drug addict on talk radio is he can take a small detail, with big headlines like hanging chads (remember those), do three hours one day on the subject and an hour the next day and INFLAME millions of listeners. Franken could have done that effortlessly today with Galloway's testimony. The difference between a pro and amateur, the drug addict would have had millions of viewers believing this the way the world sees us...failures, liars, bullies and it would have been the first time in his program's history that he didn't have to lie to rally his listeners.

Franken blew it!!! :grr: :banghead: :grr: :banghead: :grr: :banghead::rant:

[NMDemDist2]

1. I only heard snippets of Al's show, but he had Galloway as a topic

yesterday as did Ed Schulz

today it's filibuster all day

[northzax]

2. do not hitch your horse to Galloway

he is slime. He may be right on this position, but he visited baghdad in 1992 and embraced Hussein. He spoke out, not simply against the war, but in favour of Hussein. The only reason he's an MP is because he left his home district and ran in a heavily Muslim/immigrant section of London.

I don't know if he took money from Saddam or not, but he is not a person you want to be associated with.

[K-W]

7. He is also the victim of a proven disinformation campaign.

But nobody is hitching anything to galloway. Everyone is accurately discussing his argument.

[bpilgrim]

10. you are just like our congress folk, SMEARING HIM, with 0 proof... SHAME

:puke:

http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/George_Galloway.mp3

peace

[northzax]

24. I don't have my headphones with me

is that perchance the part where he says, roughly, "look, when I told Saddam Hussein that 'your excellency I salute your courage'after my country had just been to war with him, I was taken out of context, I really wasn't in his Presidential palace, and it was taken out of context, see, out of context."?

and when Trent Lott praised segregation, it was 'taken out of context' right? no harm, no foul.

By the way, since he accused the Iraqi government of taking the clip out of conext, why did he then go back THREE MORE TIMES in the next decade, including having Christmas with Tariq Aziz, the man who had 'smeared' him. I find that people are reticent to take trips and use political capital to propo up governments that smear them, don't you?

[zoeb]

12. I bet you half of the people listening to

Gallaway doesn't know that information and view him as a Oxy Clean salesman who's product they would buy in heartbeat! It's the outside appearance...or the packaging that counts.

[bpilgrim]

17. here's another Norm Coleman - no facts, just FUD

against all DU tradition.
http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/George_Galloway.mp3

peace

[LynnTheDem]

20. "spoke out in favor of Hussein". Oh? Got a link of any quotes of

Galloway speaking "in favor of Hussein"?

[northzax]

22. you'll probably tell me this is all propaganda anyway...

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/Iraq/INA/iraq-ina-galloway-081002.htm
http://www.startribune.com/stories/124/5408491.html
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050512/323/finfk.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/george-galloway
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1478182,00.html?gusrc=rss
want more? find the video of him telling Hussein "I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability." oh sure, he says this is out of context now, of course he does.

Also, ever hear what he said about that bastion of freedom the USSR? "I am on the anti-imperialist left." The Stalinist left? "I wouldn't define it that way because of the pejoratives loaded around it; that would be making a rod for your own back. If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe. it was in the Guardian, that bastion of anti-liberal thinking.

So we have a man who praised Saddam Hussein to his face, mourns the collapse of the Soviet Union, thinks Stalin is misunderstood (the use of 'pejoratives around it' to say why he's not a Stalinist is like someone saying, "sure, I like little boys, but I wouldn't call myself a pedophile because that word has such negative connotations."

Look, I have seen no evidence that Mr. Galloway profited financially in any way from the Oil-for-Food program, in fact, the evidence seems to lean the other direction. So as far as I'm concerned, that charge is spurious. If Mr. Galloway was, as he claimed, an opponent of Hussein's regime, why did he visit three times in a decade? Why did he spend Christmas with Tariq Aziz? Galloway's either a liar, a true believer or an opportunist hack who can give a good speech.

There are certain beliefs that are beyond the pale. For me, one of them is sympathising with Stalin, especially with the information we know now about his regime. Would you forgive a politician who said "if only Hitler were still around, the US wouldn't be dominating Europe, the biggest tragedy of my lifetime was the fall of the Nazi Regime. Would I call myself a Nazi? well, no, the term is so pejorative. If you are asking did I support the Nazis? well, yes I did." would you? would you be banging the drum for someone who said that? Even if he was right on another issue? is that the person you want as you standard bearer? if so, fine, but count me out.

again, there is no real evidence that Mr. Galloway conspired with Iraq to receive financial benefit from exploiting the oil-for-food program, at least none that I have seen. At this time, I believe that charge to be false and should be dropped.

[MSchreader]

35. I note that...

None of the links you provide have a link to the video from which the quote is purported to come. That, and Galloway's consistent explanation of to whom it was addressed (and his stated regret that it looks like it is addressed to Saddam Hussein), make me question your assertions.

Martin

[northzax]

38. um, he doesn't deny saying it

only that it was taken out of context. What would the video clip show?

I still would question anyone who would praise the courage and indefagitability (is that a word? it is now!) of a country that your own nation was just at war with. He was not a private citizen at the time, right? he was an elected representative of the UK, went to a country his country had just fought a war with and told them they were brave-

And the use of indefagitable? a name associated with the great ships of the Royal Navy? (I know of three Indy's, there may be more, a Frigate under Pellew that blockaded the Gironde, a Battlecruiser in WWI that lasted 15 minutes, and a currently operating baby Carrier)

[LynnTheDem]

40. It would show that he was speaking to the people of Iraq. "Saddam statue

toppling"; did ya see that one? MILLIONS of cheering Iraqis just tore down that sucker!

Not.

But gee, sure looks like it in the US "msm" video.

Ain't it amazing the tricks one can do with video...

[LynnTheDem]

37. LOL! You'd be so WRONG, then, wouldn't ya! I agree with what Galloway

says about the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's why we're so fucked now. He's exactly right.

His "salute" is very old news, and anyone who knows the FACTS about his "salute" wouldn't be using it against him. And yes indeed, it is taken out of context. As you obviously already knew. ;)

So now would you like to see official documents dating from 1990 to 2003 where Galloway consistantly called Hussein a brutal dictator & a thug; denounced US & UK support & financing of Hussein; called for helping the Iraqi people rather than the "brutal dictator stradling them"?

[northzax]

39. this line alone...

says about the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's why we're so fucked now. He's exactly right. means we have nothing further to talk about. Such a poor grasp of reality. Thanks for playing.

[LynnTheDem]

41. ROTFL!!!

You're right; you DO have such a poor grasp of reality.

Thanks for the laugh! :)

Edit; just to help save you embarrassment in future; do a search into who else believes the collapse of the SU hurt the globe due to the upset of balance of power. You'll be shocked, SHOCKED I tell ya!

ROTFL!!!

[northzax]

45. Ever visit the USSR?

not a pleasant place. Ever go to Eastern Europe before 1990? fun times. Mongolia, perhaps? Ukraine?

If you think that the world is a worse place without the USSR in it, then you need to visit Warsaw.

or are we playing real-politik now?

[LynnTheDem]

49. "Ever visit the USSR?" Yep, many times. Got the most fabulous

black lacquer boxes tehre, and met some very wonderful people.
The pizza absolutely SUCKS though.

"Eastern Europe pre 1990?" Yep, Czechoslovakia. FAB people, huge sweet tooth which is fine as I have one too.

I also have a loverly piece of the Berlin Wall...MAN was that a PARTY! Well, what little I actually remember of it...

And yep I've been to Poland, too.

Still wanna "play real-politik"?

And please, do tell me all the trips to the above places you made. We can compare notes on best restaurants; since we have friends in each of those countries we got in on the "restaurants tourists are never told about".

By the way, a majority of Russians did want the Soviet Union back. I guess you missed all that news here in the USA. I wasn't here at the time. I was living in Europe during that time.

Edit; A link for ya;

59 percent believe that life was better under communism

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EPF/is_n16_v96/ai_19064633
That must be the "Stalin's killers" 59%. ;)

[northzax]

50. why maintain a piece of the Wall?

to mourn the passing of the fine worker's paradise in East Berlin? Why were you partying?

I was in Vilnius in March of 1990 when the Supreme Soviet declared independance from Moscow. I saw the faces of people as they declared themselves to be their own country.

And in 1946 the average German missed the Nazis. big fucking deal. So I guess you do as well? after all, Europe would be much more stable if Germany simply controlled the entire place and sent all the undesirables off, right?

And in 1946, the average Japanese wanted the Empire back. Even Napoleon got a second act.

big deal.

[LynnTheDem]

51. Why are you using non-leftwing techniques?

Could you please point out where in ANY post I have EVER made ANYWHERE on the internet in my entire life where I said it was a bad thing the Berlin Wall came down?

Or perhaps you would explain how the Soviet Union collapse and my having attended the Berlin Wall party and did in fact party have anything whatsoever to do with each other?

Maybe you're one of those individuals who believes if one supports one thing anywhere at anytime, one must ALWAYS and FOREVER support anything even remotely similiar anywhere else at any other time?

You're calling 59% of the Russian people liars? YOU know better than they? Want more links to majorities of Russians saying they had a better life under communism? There are plenty such links. You blow off their opinions...but not Galloway's. Even though the Russians' and Galloway's opinions were similiar.

And you DON'T have an agenda. Hmmmm.

And now according to you I'm a Nazi lover huh. Yeah gee, because I can agree with and understand the why of the majority of Russians' remarks about the Soviet Union OF COURSE that automatically means I miss good ol' Nazi Germany!

ROTFLMAO!!!

[SoCalDem]

54. The LEADERS of the Soviet Union were the "problem"

just as the current LEADER of the US is our current problem..

As I understood it, the Soviet leadership just spent the place into oblivion..kind of like WE are doing right now on our quest for never-ending war.

The everyday people in the USSR, the ones who were not interested in politics, probably had more "secure" lives during the heyday of the USSR.

Once "western-style" living arrived there, only a few "made it". There are many people who are worse off now..(not that that's a reason why communism is ok)..

[LynnTheDem]

56. Exactly correct, SoCal. As the majority of Russians have said themselves.

Too many Americans are so clueless about what the various forms of government are. It's all "communism - evil"..."fascism = evil" period, and that's not true.

Communism is just another form of government, and there is nothing whatsoever "inherently evil" in any form of government.

It's what LEADERS of a given government do via abuses, and there always comes a point in a nation when another form of government may be better for the people better than whatever current form they have.

[northzax]

55. not at all

I am certain that 59% of Russians polled do, in fact, miss the Soviet Union. Can you blame them? at least they were fed and powerful. they had security, and would be willing to trade what remnants of liberty and freedom they possess for the security of totalitarianism, where if you didn't rock the boat, you were fine.

something like 60% of Americans don't think the bill of rights, as read to them, is ok, does that mean we should repeal it?

You said you agreed that the collapse of the Soviet Union made the world less stable, and that you agreed with Galloway (who said it was the greatest tragedy of his lifetime) and yet you celebrated when the place was under attack? that doesn't compute. You mourn the USSR, but celebrated it's demise.

I never said you were a nazi lover, or even a sympathizer, I simply said that most Germans in 1946 wanted the Nazis back, at least life was stable, and they were a strong country, not a defeated, occupied one. The majority wants to be safe, and will trade away almost everything to get the sense of security and pride.

Anyway, this is absurd. I'm having a conversation with someone who mourns something she once celebrated, and can't get that dissonance. If you truely mourn the Soviet Union, then you should be ashamed of dancing on the Wall, that led directly to the collapse of the Soviet Union. You helped it happen. Good for you! but don't tell me you mourn it.

[LynnTheDem]

58. I am so sorry you are unable to comprehend the nuances.

That truly is unfortunate for you.

The demise of the Soviet Union upset the power of balance, and has directly led to the global nightmare; Imperialist America.

It has directly contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands (at a minimum) that would not have happened had the SU still been in power. And God only knows what the final bodycount will be.

I mourn that. And that is exactly what Galloway said he mourned. And as I've said, it's quite a common mourning, if you'd research into discussions about the down side of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Of course those with rigid black-white mentality will be unable to comprehend such nuances. With such types, it's all "either-or for-against", and they have my deepest sympathy.

You never said I was a Nazi lover or sympathizer, huh? Guess that would depend on one's definition of "is";

And in 1946 the average German missed the Nazis. big fucking deal. So I guess you do as well?

That's actually an often-used rightwing ploy, so I'm quite surprised to see you using it.

[northzax]

59. hundreds of thousands?

the Soviet Union contributed to the deaths of tens of millions. Add two zeros to the 100,000 (high end) estimate of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan (the Afghan ones probably would have happened anyway, the Taliban weren't exactly friendly to people) There was no real balance of power, the Soviet Union had long ceased to be an effective counterwieght to the US. And frankly, I prefer American Imperialism to the Soviet Variety. The US has occupied two nations, one of which, frankly, is better off (er, that would be afghanistan) The USSR occupied and annexed 16. Where was the great balance of power in Riga? think they enjoyed it? Ulaanbaatar? good times. So we're comparing Iraq to everything east of the Iron Curtain. interesting trade off.


Galloway said he was a supporter of the Soviet Union. exact quote. not that he mourned the loss of balance of power, but that he was a supporter. completely different things, don't you think? or is that too black and white for you?

[LynnTheDem]

61. And did he also at the same time say WHY?

Well gee, yes, so he did!

"If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe."

[ConfuZed]

52. I support saddam and I wish that he was still president of iraq

because if he was scores of iraqi's would still be alive and our men and women would be home.

NOW WHAT?

[LynnTheDem]

57. Now what?

Now I think you truly care about the hundreds of thousands of human beings who have been killed, wounded, destroyed for life, and don't believe that one man, who wasn't committing genocide in a nation the Red Cross and HRW and AI etc say was not in need of any "humanitarian intervention", was worth the hundreds of thousands who have been, and the God only knows how many who will yet be, destroyed.

And all for a huge stinking pile of total lies.

[Vladimir]

23. The reason he is an MP is because the people voted for him

believing that he would represent them more closely on the issues than Oona King. If we follow your logic, every Muslim in the country would have voted based on the war: that is quite simply not true. And you are welcome to accuse Galloway of being a supporter of Saddam, but the record shows otherwise mon ami:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3683731&mesg_id=3683731

[northzax]

25. actions speak louder than words

Galloway says he was opposed to the regime of Saddam Hussein, but his actions showed someone who either is an opporunist idiot or a de facto supporter of the regime.

Look, I didn't think Saddam was such a great guy, and I certainly wouldn't have spent Christmas with his foreign minister in Iraq, not on an official meeting, but just to be there. Maybe he gave Aziz a bomb for Christmas? Galloway turns out to have been right, on this war, as most of us were, but his actions over the past 15 years leave a sour taste in my mouth. He's a self-professed admirer of Stalin, for chrissake. What, no Pol Pot?

[Vladimir]

26. In fact it was America that supported Pol Pot, but then you

were being sarcastic. And actually, Galloway met Saddam twice. The second time he was there to try and persuade Saddam to let the inspectors back in - as it happens he failed, but I think few would seriously argue with the motive of the trip. The first time around, he was there to try and remind the world that the Iraq war, through sanctions and no-fly zones and periodic aerial bombardments, was still going on. Now Galloway has said many times that he regrets his words on first meeting Saddam, and I think everyone regrets them. But that is one statement, out of dozens of public statements he has made against Saddam, and if you are going to hold your politicians to that sort of standard I wish you luck in finding someone to vote for.

[northzax]

27. as I mentioned below

or above, whichever, I will hold my leaders to the standard of not mourning the passing of Stalin. Or of the totalitarian Soviet Union. Galloway said he is anti-totalitarian, but that he misses the Soviet Union and it's influence. Quick, list one client state of the Soviet Union that was not a totalitarian state? c'mon, please? just one?

[Vladimir]

28. You may not mourn the passing of the Soviet union

but many of its former citizens, especially Russians, do. You can get on a high horse all you like, but the USA sponsored as many dictatorships, if not more, as the USSR did during the cold war - including Pol Pot, including Pinochet, including Saddam. I suspect you might mourn the USA's passing if it were to break apart tomorrow though...

[northzax]

29. take your pick

moscow in 1974 or Washington in 1974? where would you rather have been born?

but I see that we are in the 'he who is without sin' mode. and I would point out that the UK is hardly blameless in the totalitarian game. No one is.

You are probalby right though, the 30 million or so Russians killed by Stalin probably miss the good old days. And oyu know who else does? the Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, Georgians, Mongolians, Uzbeks, Kazakhs...all people who the minute they had the chance to leave, did. And let's not forget the Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Albanians, Serbs, Croats...all of whom lived under the Soviet Union dominance for 50 years. I'm sure they miss ths good old days too.

The US is in no way shape or form blameless, and has supported unconsionable people over the past century. But does that mean it is equivalent to the USSR?? not hardly, and anyone who thinks so is looking through rose coloured glasses. I assume, of course, that you had the opportunity to visit the old Soviet Union, and see how things realy were, right? you speak from experience? the Worker's Paradise?

Yes, I would mourn the collapse of the United States, of course, but so would much of the world, like it or not, the US is a linchpin of modern global society, economically and politically. I know that makes us an easy target (and electing these idiots makes it even easier) but China and India aren't ready to take their place on the stage yet, the collapse of the Soviet Union created wealth and opportunity for millions of people, especially in Eastern Europe (don't think so? go to Warsaw and ask someone, or maybe Budapest) the collapse of the US would be cataclysmic to the global economy and create a new Great Depression. In 15 years, that might be different, but right now it holds true.

[Vladimir]

30. Thank you for mentioning the UK

I could spend days going on about the crimes of the Empire, which were arguably worse than anything Stalin did, which no British monarch has been in the dock for. The Kenyan emergency, an Aushwitz at the heart of the Empire as a Labour MP then described it, the Indian famines, the gassing of the Kurds, the Falklands War, I could go on but it would bore you. The Soviet Union in the 70s was not the Soviet union in the 30s, in fact the two are about as comparable as the America of today is to the one which was born amist the genocidal elimination of the Native American population from the face of this planet, which was sustained through the slave trade which Africa has never recovered from.

We are indeed in the 'he who is without sin' mode. I have never said that the Soviet Union was without fault, and neither has any serious student of the matter. The Soviet Union had a litany of faults. But you take history as a whole, the good and the bad, the murders and the progress. And on that balance, the case for the Soviet Union is arguable.

PS Incidentally, the Serbs and Croats never lived under the USSR umbrella, which was both a blessing and a curse. But that is a debate for another time.

[LynnTheDem]

44. LOL!!!

Damn! I haven't had this much fun reading total bullshit in ages!

He regrets the upset of the balance of power. And IN FACT the collapse of the Soviet Union DID upset the balance of power, making America the only superpower on the globe, which has directly led to the rise of American Fascism and the bushCartel and the world annhilation we're facing because of bush & his fascist bastard Cartel.

We wouldn't be in this situ if the Soviet Union were still in power, and MY GOD with the huge number of articles that have discussed exactly this ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union one woulda thunk you'd already be aware of it!

And again, you REALLY should research into who else agrees with this before you continue to twist Galloway's words into your agenda. ;)

[LynnTheDem]

42. "He's a self-professed admirer of Stalin"...ROTFLMAO!!!

WOW you beat the right for twisting facts into total bullshit!

CONGRATS!

[northzax]

47. actually, it was the Guardian that twisted his words, I guess

"I am on the anti-imperialist left." The Stalinist left? "I wouldn't define it that way because of the pejoratives loaded around it; that would be making a rod for your own back. If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe"

That would be a direct quote, from a liberal newspaper. find me a refutation and I'll donate $50 to the charity of your choice.

"Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life."

refute that.

[LynnTheDem]

48. I'm not talking about the Guardian's words; I'm talking about YOURS;

Guardian:

"I am on the anti-imperialist left."

The Stalinist left?

"I wouldn't define it that way because of the pejoratives loaded around it; that would be making a rod for your own back. If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe"

You:

"He's a self-professed admirer of Stalin, for chrissake."

NOT the same at all. And you know it. :)

[northzax]

53. gee, sure reads to me that he's of the Stalinist left,

he just won't call himself that because it would be pejorative.

He didn't say "no, Stalin was not someone I identify with" he said he would identify with Stalin, but for the fact that "that would be making a rod for your back."

[LynnTheDem]

60. Then you have my deepest sympathies.

I suspect life must be extra difficult for those with the rigid black-white for-against mentality, the ones completely unable to see or comprehend nuances.

He did not say he could identify with Stalin.

He did not say he would identify with Stalin BUT FOR anything.

That is YOU saying that, not Galloway. You are, of course, free to INFER anything you like.

Now I'll tell you how I took his remarks:

"Ohhh no ya don't! You won't get me to say I identify with the "left" of Stalin, because I know you want me to just so you can use that against me...now if by "Stalin left" you mean do I support the Soviet Union and mourn its collapse then yes, I do mourn its collapse BECAUSE "If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe."

As you said previously, actions speak louder than words; so how about all them rallies and protests and marches and being arrested protesting against nukes and the petitions and etc that George Galloway has taken part in over the decades fighting against pretty much every single thing the Dem Party supposedly stands against.

I look at his actions, and I look at his words, and I see a man who has dedicated his life to the betterment of the "unwashed masses", and taken massive attacks for doing so.

It's so sad, but typical, that the rightwingnuttery smears him without allowing him the very slightest benefit of the doubt. To see the left do so is beyond sad; it's part & parcel of why we're in the situ today that we are in.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Toots]

31. Maybe you could offer up a small smidgeon of evidence of your assumptions

I think a person is slime if they slime a person without offering up facts to back their story.

[northzax]

32. and maybe before posting a personal attack

you could be bothered to read post number 21, posted an hour before your post, that provides documentation and explains my reasoning for why I think he's a slime. Note that I never said he was a crook, only that he leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

but I guess it's easier not to, huh?

[MSchreader]

33. At least get the facts right

First, Galloway's exclamation was, according to him, the use of a royal "you", meaning the Iraqi people. Facts are facts. As he pointed out in his statement before Coleman and Levin, Galloway was a longtime campaigner against the atrocities committed by the Ba'athist regime, at a time when both Republicans and Democrats were supporting sending arms and chemical weapons to Baghdad for their war against Iran.

Second, Galloway's original constituency, Glasgow Kelvin, was "redistricted" out of existence by Blair and "New Labour". So, he had to find a new district in which to run, and chose Bethnal Green and Bow, which until recently was represented by Oona King, one of the most stalwart supporters of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Yes, BGB has a high South Asian/Muslim population, but it is not the only area that fits that description (Oldham comes immediately to mind). What seems to have finalized the decision to contest in BGB was ... Oona King and her views on the war.

Martin

P.S.: As for Galloway's comments about the former Soviet Union, he is right about one thing: it is highly unlikely that the U.S. would have tried to invade Iraq if it still existed. Iraq was a client state and ally of the USSR throughout the 1960s and 1970s, and still had close ties with Moscow until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

[northzax]

34. you have your interpretation of his actions

I have mine. Galloway consistently claimed that Iraq took his words out of context, that's fine. You think he brought it up over the Christmas goose with Tariq Aziz?

or am I somehow misinterpreting that as well?

Certainly, the US would have had to think twice about invading Iraq if a strong Soviet Union still existed, then again, life would be different if a strong Germany still stood astride Europe. Doesn't mean in balance it is a better thing, though.

Look, I personally put Stalin on the same level as Hitler in the annals of 20th Century evil. Anyone who thinks Stalin was a good thing, or compliments Stalinism is, to me, the exact same thing as complimenting Hitler and Nazism. Certainly there were some good aspects of both regimes, but the evil they did far outweighs anything remotely good about them. It's like Charles Manson saving a kitten from drowning (I am making this up) a nice thing to do, but it certainly doesn't come close to making up for the evil he did. The minute someone in the 1990s compliments Stalin, and misses the totalitarian nature of the Soviet Union, without even acknowleding that totalitarianism, my nose starts twitching.

Again, I feel I should reiterate that I have seen no evidence that Galloway is a criminal in any way, therefore that discussion is moot until there is evidence( the burden is on the prosecution, right?) But from what I know of him, the worshipping of him that some people are undertaking is not wise, from my point of view. Just because he is right on this issue doesn't mean that he isn't a slimeball. I don't think people are as aware of that as they should be.

[MSchreader]

36. Indeed

He may very well have brought that up to Aziz. Also, I would not put Aziz in the same category as Saddam Hussein. The fact that he is currently cooperating with the Quisling government over there seems to put him in a different category. Remember as well that Aziz was moved in and out of Iraqi cabinet positions (against Aziz's will, apparently) in order for Hussein to present a more "humane" face.

There is a lot of ignorance about the realities of what Stalinism did (and did not do) while it ruled. While I would not put an equal sign between Stalinism and fascism, I do think there were horrific parallels between them. I am neither a supporter nor an apologist for what Stalin and his regime did under the stolen flag of communism (and, let me emphasize this point again: what they did was under a stolen flag), and my comments should not be interpreted as being such. You are right when you say that "life would be different if a strong Germany still stood astride Europe". That is certainly true. And that was, in essence, my only point.

Martin

[northzax]

43. indeed right back

<excellent use of the word 'quisling' by the way, don't hear that one enough :)>

I would first off say that Aziz was, at the very least, a collaborator with the Hussein regime, and now he collaborates with whoever the hell is running the place now (from the inside of a jail cell, of course) Tariq Aziz is also slimey, he many, or may not, be evil, I don't know, but he certainly profited from an assoication with evil.

I think we're on the same page, or at least the same chapter in regards to Stalinism. I wouldn't equate Stalin to facism in general, I think that would be unfair to Generalissimos Franco and Mussolini who were fascists but did not run genocides against their own people (to the same extent as Hitler) I can compare Stalinism to Nazism, however, in the willingness to use brutal force and genocidal tactics to gain and maintain power. I'l also throw the Khmer Rouge and Chairman Mao up there (as well as Lord Amherst, by the way, but he came before) Mass murder is mass murder. I certainly never intended to imply that you, personally were an apologist for Stalinism, if I did so, I apologise.

[Webster Green]

3. He played audio of Galloway laying into Coleman....

It was great!

[0007]

4. Mike Molloy was on the George Galloway story last night

and I'm sure after Al studies the case he'll come out with more than he did yesterday.

Cut him a little slack, eh?

[BlueEyedSon]

5. Al is a moderate

[bpilgrim]

11. he's probably mad he didn't say it like Galloway did - n/t

peace

[dogday]

6. Rhandi Rhodes started right off with it...

You know she loved it...

[zoeb]

13. I love to hear Randi

but I missed the first part of her show today...but she does a super job.

[katinmn]

18. I was disappointed that KO referred to him as a British Zell Miller

Wasn't exactly a compliment.

[Eric J in MN]

8. Do you have a good voice?

If not, that is fine.

Buf if you do, then record 10 minutes, post an mp3, and show us how it's done.

[ScreamingMeemie]

9. I thought Franken did a hell of a job going after Frist, Lott and MSM

over the whole "nuclear option" quote. He ran every single snippet of when they used it...and also the admission that it is credited to him. :shrug: Franken's doing better than I expected him to.

[bonzotex]

14. Franken doesn't want his show to be like Pigboy's

Franken tries to mix it up everyday. That's the good thing, he doesn't dwell on one thing and yammer it to death. Sometimes it's good sometimes it's a yawner, but he's an entertainer. He doesn't want his show to sound like Rush or any of the other lying screamers. He gets his facts straight and has smart progressive guests. He usually hits on 3 or 4 big issues every day including usually skewering Rush, Hannity and BOR He slammed all three of those knuckleheads today, using their own clips to show they are liars and idiots. Plus, he had good discussions of the Filibuster, Galloway, and the Newsweek silliness. If you like your host to rail for 3 hours on one topic, listen to Randi Rhodes. Me? I'll take Franken.

[tishaLA]

15. Franken DID talk about Galloway

maybe you just missed it. Or, as you say about Mr. Franken, maybe you blew it.

[Eric J in MN]

21. If you re-read the first post, she is disappointed that Franken waited

until the end of the show, instead of doing 3 hours on George Galloway.

[Prodemsouth]

16. I was really looking forward to his show when AAR debut?

I regretfully have to say that it sounds real elitist- kind of NPRish.
Think tankers only, or well known names, no calls from auidence just listen to what we have to say. I was surprised he did not began with Galloway.

[bridgit]

19. here's what i think part of the problem is...

first & foremost: 'talk radio' never stops 'talking', arguing with an extreme bias, bitching, gripping, bell aching, moaning, pissing & obfuscating. it is their full time job & they are well paid for it. they are playing to the jerry springer crowd i.e. too many like to see others made a fool of; and we all know there is not allot of intel in that group.

franken's delivery is spot-on as it has been during his comedy set ups...measured, studied, and in lieu of a witty punchline.

'talk radio' does not care two figs about a witty punchline, or as to whether the end is being 'justified' by way of shitty means, so long as the appearance is there.

the net result of all this, imo, the only punchline they care to deliver, or indeed do deliver; is that progressive thought is void of tangible meaning.

civility is all but completely lost as is plain to see reading nearly every headline.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/18/national/main696186.shtml

TALK RADIO NEED BE SHOUTED DOWN!!!

there is no time left for comedy or mishap...time is of the essence.

[UdoKier]

46. Franken is AAR's inoffensive, soft-left "entertainment" show.

That's why I seldom listen.

If you want somebody with some bite, listen to Randi or Malloy.

Franken has NEVER been hard left. It was very difficult for him even to say that Bush was wrong on the war - he waited until well after it was "over".

He's also very much influenced by what he sees as the mainstream. Since mainstream media have not had a field day over Galloway (in fact they have squelched it), neither will Franken. He's all about playing the game on the right-wings field - addressing their fax-blasted talking points for the day. It the big story was Newsweak's retraction, that's what he's gonna do. There is a place for that kind of program too. It's just not my cup of tea.

I'm not a big Franken fan, but I wouldn't dump all over him for being Franken. At least he's not a right-wing stooge like Alan Colmes.