Saturday, May 21, 2005

Mr. Galloway Evaporates 

Via our distinguished colleague Brad Friedman of BradBlog: We hope you have not been trying to find the text of George Galloway's recent testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on the official committee website, because if you have, it is your sad lot to be disappointed. The committee, it seems, is none too keen to commemorate its brief chat with Mr. G., and as a result future generations, if they are forced to rely on the official website, may never know the truth about the genesis of Sen. Norm Coleman's second asshole. Have a look at the list of speakers and see if you can guess which one won't be invited back:
Member Statements

Senator Norm Coleman [
View PDF]
Senator Carl Levin [
View PDF]

Witnesses Testimony

Panel 1

Mark L. Greenblatt [
View PDF], Counsel, U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
Steven A. Groves [
View PDF], Counsel, U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
Dan M. Berkovitz [
View PDF] , Counsel to the Minority , U. S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

Panel 2

George Galloway, Member of Parliament for Bethnal Green and Bow, Great Britain
Mr Galloway did not submit a statement

Panel 3

Thomas A. Schweich [
View PDF] , Chief of Staff, U.S. Mission to the United Nations , U. S. Department of State
Robert W. Werner [
View PDF] , Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control , U. S. Department of the Treasury
Peter Reddaway [
View PDF] , Professor Emeritus of Political Science and International Affairs , George Washington University
BradBlog phoned Sen. Coleman's office to inquire about the reason for Mr. Galloway's retroactive absence from the proceedings:
A staffer in Coleman's office referred us to the subcommittee staff when we asked for the reasons for "the removal of the testimony". Her reply: "That's a question for the subcommittee. Senator Coleman is the chairman, but the committee makes their own decisions about what goes on the website."
The Senator's reluctance is understandable: we doubt he wants to see that speech in print any more than Saddam wanted to see the underwear photos on the front page of the Sun. But history is history, and if the committee doesn't want to post the full transcript just yet, then shoot, they could at least put up a temp link to CounterPunch.

Elsewhere, our combustible colleague Arvin Hill directed us to a fine rant (or perhaps metarant, since it is, in fact, a rant on the occasion of Galloway's rant), addressed to the leadership of the Democratic Party, by Stan Goff of Feral Scholar:
George Galloway did that for which you have proven incapable; he spoke as an opposition. Since there seems to be a great dark space in the middle of your heads where the notion of opposition should be – a void filled by parliamentary molasses and the pusillanimous inabilty to tell simple truths – I suggest you all review the recordings of Galloway’s confrontation with Republican Senator Norm “Twit” Coleman to see exactly how effortless it is to stand up to these cheap political bullies. While you are at it, you can watch your colleague Carl Levin demonstrate exactly what I mean about most of you and your party, as he alternately hurls petulant cream-puff insults at Galloway and kisses Coleman’s stunned, clueless ass to give that toothy dipshit some comfort in the wake of Galloway’s verbal drubbing.

Galloway didn’t have to walk up to the docket and slap the cowboy shit out of Coleman – though I admit I still struggle with my own secret urges to do just that with most of the air-brushed, combed-over, Stepford meat-puppets who now people the United States Congress. No, all Galloway had to do was tell the unvarnished truth, and it had exactly the same effect. If Democrats had half the spine that Galloway does… if you would stop chasing your creepy little careers through the caviar and chicken-salad circuits of duck-and-cover American political double-speak, then not only would people like me not be calling for all to abandon the Democratic Party and take their fight to the streets like good Bolivians ... not only that, but you’d have won the last election.
As long as you're roaming the midway at the Carnival of Horrors, there are several new attractions we can recommend. One is "Models of Engagement," in which Spartacus O'Neal of Skookum proposes a new paradigm for combating the "political violence" of the Bush administration --
Whether you’re confronting our National Security State, theocratic organizations like Christian Coalition, pro-corporate social movement entrepreneurs like Wise Use, or other forms of anti-democratic organization, you need to select an appropriate model of engagement and deploy it in a manner that takes advantage of your enemy’s weaknesses and your allies’ strengths. And, much like military warfare, this requires research, intelligence-gathering, education, organizing, and then action. Uninformed action, unprepared confrontation--based on simplistic slogans and righteous indignation alone--functions as moral theatrics that both frustrates and dissipates limited social support in the face of adversaries who treat you with contempt. As such, you may be a nuisance to tyrants like Bush and Cheney, but in terms of power, you are no threat . . . .

The public health model--designed for preventing epidemics and containing outbreaks of microbial disease--uses a three-step prophylactic process: 1. isolate the pathogen; 2. inoculate susceptible populations; and 3. educate the population at large. As applied to the realm of politics, the model relies heavily on the power of moral sanction. Not surprisingly, this necessitates the involvement of religious and other moral authorities who wield the credentials to invoke our core values, some of which we share in common with our adversaries.
-- and another is Mr. Hill's own reply to Kevin Drum.

| | Technorati Links | to Del.icio.us