[lbo-talk] Palast's Palimpsest: Lying About Galloway.

John Lacny jlacny at earthlink.net
Sun Sep 18 09:10:33 PDT 2005


Galloway is not my favorite political figure (though his performance in front of the Senate was absolutely thrilling), and his salute to Saddam's "indefatigability" was stupid. And I am sure that Palast's interest here is that he supports the anti-war movement and does not want Galloway to emerge as a sort of spokesman for it, for fear that his kookiness will discredit us. But if Palast thinks this is a real danger -- particularly in the United States -- then he has been living in Britain for too long. Galloway is a blip on the screen here, and no one cares about him but the few of us who pay attention to this inside baseball. It does not justify one -- let alone two -- commentaries from a credible left investigative journalist. I also thought that the comment about him being rich now was a cheap shot, unworthy of Palast's body of work and reminiscent of the right's pseudo-populist attacks on Michael Moore here; I actually wrote to Palast about this, and his assistant said that Palast himself actually agreed and thought that the comment about Galloway having money was a mistake.

Further, Galloway does deserve eternal credit for at least one very important thing, and that was standing by the British miners when most everyone else had abandoned them twenty years ago. That sort of thing goes a long way in working-class communities, as it should. And I am not interested in the bleatings of a journalistic pipsqueak like Johann Hari on this subject, especially since he's accumulated some blood on his own hands as a scribe for the powers-that-be in supporting this war from the very beginning. With Galloway at least you know he's going to be on your side when it matters; that's much more than can be said for Hari or for any two-bit drunk with inflated literary pretentions whose name is best not mentioned (and who is not worth debating -- another note to Galloway).

I do not know much about the substance of the allegations against Galloway in the Mariam Appeal, nor do I care to read more extensively on them at this moment, but I do say that I am deeply skeptical of them, especially in light of what I know of an earlier even I've already alluded to. The British tabloids smeared Arthur Scargill as an agent of Qaddafi and as a pilferer of money raised for striking miners; all of this turned out to be lies, all of it literally orchestrated by MI5, and Scargill turned out to be squeaky-clean. You can call him a fanatic if you want (I call him the greatest and most principled trade unionist of the post-war English-speaking industrialized world, with the possible exception of Jim Matles, who had a similar personality and political background), but Scargill followed Mao's injunction to never steal so much as a spool of thread from the masses. The campaign against Galloway -- which as I recall began with the "discovery" of some memo of uncertain vintage in the ruins of Baghdad -- has looked suspiciously like this from the very beginning. I am not willing to assume that Galloway "must be guilty of something" just because a lot of people are saying so.

- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com

Tell no lies, claim no easy victories



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list