October 25, 2005
Norm Coleman is a lot like his ideological
brother, David Horowitz. Back in the day, Coleman was a 1960s leftist
radical, as was Horowitz, but over time Coleman slithered to the
reactionary side of the political spectrum, as did Horowitz, and when
Paul Wellstone’s plane suspiciously fell out of the sky in 2002,
Coleman snagged the Minnesota Senate seat. It didn’t take long for
Coleman, who once organized antiwar marches at Hofstra University, to
demand Bush and the neocons attack Iraq. Mission accomplished, Coleman
moved on to chair a Senate panel investigating the alleged abuses of
the UN’s oil-for-food program in Iraq, concentrating his wrath on the
British MP, George Galloway, one of the last principled men in the
whole of the British government.
Galloway, of course, never
received a dime from Saddam, although he did launch the Mariam Appeal
cancer charity to help a sick Iraqi girl (Mariam Hamza) and for medical
aid to Iraqi children—the helpless children Coleman is responsible for,
as a warmonger and member of Senate who voted for the invasion,
injuring and maiming with cluster bombs and depleted uranium—that is
after Clinton and Bush Senior had thinned the ranks by way of monstrous
sanctions, that is to say starving kids to death and denying them
"Mr. Galloway may face criminal charges if found
to have given false testimony to the committee when he defended himself
against similar claims in a passionate showdown earlier this year,"
writes the National Enquirer of the right, the Drudge Report.
"The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has accused him of
giving 'false and misleading testimony’ at the May 17 hearing…. Mr.
Galloway, who used the headline-grabbing appearance as the basis for a
new book, denied being an oil trader, soliciting oil allocations or
instructing anyone to do so on his behalf. But Republican Senator Norm
Coleman, who chairs the committee, claims to have obtained new evidence
proving that Saddam’s regime granted oil allocations to the Bethnal
Green and Bow MP and his Mariam Appeal fund." In other words, Coleman
contends Galloway received money from Saddam to help the Iraqi children
Coleman and his murderous protégés shamefully attacked. Obviously,
since killing a half million Iraqi children in the 1990s by way of
medieval sanctions was not good enough for the necrophile neocons, they
insistently demand a second go and, besides, how dare a lowly MP for
Glasgow Hillhead and Glasgow Kelvin get in their faces.
sycophants and wannabes have built a cottage industry around attacking
Galloway, as they boisterously go after anybody who makes a sound
argument in opposition to their ghoulish rationalizations for killing
hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Muslims. "Galloway is best
known for his support of terrorists whom he refers to as 'the Iraqi
resistance,’ his admiration for Saddam Hussein, his allegedly
substantial involvement in the 'Oil-for-Food’ scandal, and his seething
hatred of the West," writes Horowitz scribbler Rocco DiPippo.
In the demented Manichean world of the neocons and their mean-spirited
apostles, visceral disgust when confronting the wholesale murder of
Iraqi babies and grandmothers is "admiration for Saddam Hussein" and
"seething hatred of the West." Galloway "clearly sides with the suicide
bombers, the beheaders and other psychopaths that murder civilians in
Iraq and elsewhere" and people who agree with Galloway—the neocon
invasion and occupation is morally repugnant and a crime of Nuremberg
dimension—are, according to DiPippo, "cheering for their own deaths."
of this insidious and inflammatory nonsense aside, Galloway was quick
to challenge Coleman and his Grand Neocon Inquisitors. "I’m demanding
that they charge me with contempt and with perjury, I’m demanding it,"
Galloway told the BBC.
"If a Senate committee can go on the international airwaves without
putting this to you, without sending me an advance and accuse me of
lying under oath in front of a Senate committee, then I demand they
charge me with perjury and I’ll be on the next plane to face it."
what evidence does Coleman supposedly have implicating Galloway? "Mr.
Coleman said his investigators confirmed their evidence, which includes
numerous bank records, in interviews with the former Iraqi deputy prime
minister, Tariq Aziz, a friend of Mr. Galloway’s, the former Iraqi
Vice-President, Taha Yasin Ramadan, and the former Iraqi oil minister,
Amer Rashid," according to the Sydney Morning Herald.
would appear Coleman’s "evidence" surfaced during "interviews"
conducted on April 21 of this year with Aziz by US politicos and the
CIA at the notorious Camp Cropper prison in Baghdad (as for the lovely
conditions at Camp Cropper, see this report by Robert Fisk).
"It is imperative that there is intervention into our dire situation
and treatment," Tariq Aziz wrote about his imprisonment in a letter
published in the Observer.
"It is totally in contradiction to international law, the Geneva
Convention and Iraqi law as we know it." Considering Bush receives his
"intelligence" by way of torture and rape, anything Aziz did or did not
say about Galloway should be taken with a grain of salt, to say the
Likewise for anything Taha Yassin Ramadan, VP of Iraq
and the Ten of Diamonds in the most-wanted Iraqi deck of playing cards,
or Iraq Oil Minister General Amer Rashid, have to say.
obvious Coleman—a former leftist, now neocon hitman with a mission from
the nihilist vulcans—is itching to take down Galloway for his spot-on
analysis of the Iraqi invasion and occupation. No doubt Galloway will
come back to Washington in short order to face perjury allegations
(Galloway is not one to back down) and Coleman and the Grand Neocon
Inquisitors will attempt to throw him in the clink—and of course this
will simply feed the antiwar movement, as Galloway (and Cindy Sheehan,
now talking about civil disobedience) know well enough. Coleman, mired
in his vindictive myopia, and obviously attempting to exorcise his
1960s demons (as Horowitz continually exorcises his), either does not
understand how arresting Galloway for perjury will feed the growing
ardor of the antiwar movement. Moreover, Galloway has a damn good
record of refuting spurious charges, as he did in regard to the Daily
Telegraph’s ludicrous accusation Galloway conspired with Iraqi
intelligence (Galloway was awarded £150,000 damages plus costs
estimated to total £1.2 million in a libel case against the
"conservative," that is to say reactionary Tory newspaper). In short,
Coleman best prepare himself for the possibility of another humiliating
George Galloway tongue lashing. Either way, it will make for good
television, as did the last encounter, which left Coleman and Crew, who
are intellectual midgets when compared to Galloway, reeling and more or
less speechless in the wake of George’s testimony last May.