Galloway is only interested in promoting himself. He’ll always pick the side that will get him the most publicity. Be it IRA, Saddam Hussein, Syria or Palestine.
If everyone was wearing hats, he wouldn’t. Just to look different and stand out.
I vaguely remembered a quote about him saying he was impressed with Saddam Hussein’s indefatigably.
After going to look it up just there to confirm it was him that said it I saw more of the context around it:
Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability, and I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem.
(https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Galloway)
So whilst I agree that he’s out for himself and not someone that I particularly care for, he does seem to have had an interest in that part of the world for the last 30 years or so. This isn’t quite the out of the blue political opportunism that some people seem to be suggesting it is.
Yes it’s not out of the blue, he’s been a political opportunist for a very long time. The precise type of opportunism depends on exactly which minority lives in whichever by-election constitency he’s rolled into most recently.
Guys, being against a war is pro-Sadam Hussein now. Oh BTW that war went really really badly and he was vindicated in the end, but fuck him for trying to stop a conflict that killed over a million civilians.
He did more than oppose the Iraq war, he was very friendly to the Hussein regime and made regular trips to the region, he even had lunch with the foreign minister.
Is it bad if someone does something good for selfish reasons? Sure it would be nice if everyone was a paragon of virtue but I’d rather have a smarmy prick trying to stop wars because it strokes his ego than a smooth-taking establishment-backer who won’t change the status quo in case it hurts the economy.
He could wear a syrup, but that unless it was a Ronald McDonald type, he wouldn’t stand out. A champagne socialist like him could even afford hair transplants.
Galloway is only interested in promoting himself. He’ll always pick the side that will get him the most publicity. Be it IRA, Saddam Hussein, Syria or Palestine.
If everyone was wearing hats, he wouldn’t. Just to look different and stand out.
Disgusting specimen.
I vaguely remembered a quote about him saying he was impressed with Saddam Hussein’s indefatigably.
After going to look it up just there to confirm it was him that said it I saw more of the context around it:
So whilst I agree that he’s out for himself and not someone that I particularly care for, he does seem to have had an interest in that part of the world for the last 30 years or so. This isn’t quite the out of the blue political opportunism that some people seem to be suggesting it is.
Yes it’s not out of the blue, he’s been a political opportunist for a very long time. The precise type of opportunism depends on exactly which minority lives in whichever by-election constitency he’s rolled into most recently.
Guys, being against a war is pro-Sadam Hussein now. Oh BTW that war went really really badly and he was vindicated in the end, but fuck him for trying to stop a conflict that killed over a million civilians.
He did more than oppose the Iraq war, he was very friendly to the Hussein regime and made regular trips to the region, he even had lunch with the foreign minister.
Is it bad if someone does something good for selfish reasons? Sure it would be nice if everyone was a paragon of virtue but I’d rather have a smarmy prick trying to stop wars because it strokes his ego than a smooth-taking establishment-backer who won’t change the status quo in case it hurts the economy.
He claimed that he wears a hat following a hammer attack which left him hospitalised and severely scarred.
He could wear a syrup, but that unless it was a Ronald McDonald type, he wouldn’t stand out. A champagne socialist like him could even afford hair transplants.