You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Fifth Column
Galloway Takes a Trimmin at The Times UK
2005-05-21
A bit eloquent for my tastes, but then eloquence often does a better job than the profanity I normally engage in.

A taste:


I also wondered what his and our life might have been like if he had deployed some of his little-man courage before Saddam; standing up for some of those other hundreds of thousands of other good Muslims — Iraqis, who could have done with a persuasive advocate there and then.

Perhaps in the end, if you're a cynic you may find Mr Galloway's asymmetrical approach to authority — a lapdog in the hands of the one who likes to watch as his victims are tortured; a lion in the face of those who threaten with questions and subpoenas — simply the familiar mark of the coward. If you're an optimist, you might find it oddly comforting The Mother of Parliaments clasps him to her bosom. The world's greatest deliberative body sits in embarrassed silence as he lectures it on its shortcomings. Nothing surely illustrates better the absolute superiority of the West's system and what underpins it that we tolerate and even reward such lese-majesté. We know what Saddam did to those who were brave enough to utter much more cogent critiques of his rule.
Posted by:badanov

#7  Britain has parlimentary immunity. An MP can say whatever they like in parliment without consequence. The only restrictions are on offensive language.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-05-21 19:05  

#6  Article: The average MP, schooled in the knockabout tactics of the House of Commons, is far better equipped to score points and persuade undecided minds. And Mr Galloway’s performance duly earned him some rave reviews, not least from startled American journalists who wouldn’t dare treat their betters this way.

I find it amazing that a British specialist on American affairs can be so ignorant about the nature of Senate hearings while waxing superior about British debating techniques as exemplified by Galloway*. Senate hearings are not debates. They are trials by another name. Most people who show up at the hearings are cautious not because they respect the Senators, but because they know that anything they say, every lie they utter, could result in jail terms. Like Galloway, the writer of this article gets carried away with his own rhetoric, without understanding the essential truth - that Americans are not deferential to authority like the British are, which is why we won't submit to the D-notice (the British regulation barring newspapers from publishing facts not permitted by the government) or to British-style libel laws (where the defendant has to prove the truth of his statements - instead the person suing for libel has to prove not only that the defendant's statements are false, but that he knew that they were false, and the defendant's liability is restricted to a retraction of his statement). And this is the Times of London. As crappy as the American media are, their incompetence is far exceeded by the media around the rest of the world. Which is pretty sad, considering how incompetent the American media are.

* It was Blair's insistence on saying too much that got us into trouble about WMD's. Focus makes (on WMD's, for example) makes for better debating technique. But a shotgun approach makes sure you cover all your bases. British politicians love the sound of their own voices more than even Americans. Instead of building impregnable positions in a boring but methodical manner, they go for absolutes, in the manner of flashy trial lawyers. And Blair's rhetoric has come back to haunt us.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-05-21 13:01  

#5  Cynic - you're right.
Posted by: Raj   2005-05-21 12:12  

#4  It's true. I didn't know that he'd converted to Islam, though.
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-05-21 11:12  

#3  Cynic - there's an Arafat connection, yes. Not sure if that's the one, though. (I'd check but my cat needs a vet right now, so I gotta split)
Posted by: Raj   2005-05-21 10:12  

#2  Is it true that she was Arafat's niece?

Posted by: Cynic   2005-05-21 10:01  

#1  Don't forget he converted to Allan to marry his current wife.
Posted by: 3dc   2005-05-21 02:45  

00:00