(Continued from p.10)
"received money from Saddam Hussein's regime, taking a slice of oil earnings worth at least 375,000 pounds [$585,000] a year": Asked to explain the documents, Galloway said: "Maybe it is the product of the same forgers who forged so many other things in this whole Iraq picture. Maybe the Daily Telegraph forged it. Who knows?" What we do know is that he is a high priced whore, and according to the documents, even uncle Saddam rejected some of his demands for a bigger cut. A curious response came from The Guardian, where Galloway is an occasional contributor. They averred that the documents were real, but added, "even if the documents are genuine it must be remembered that the information they contain may be false." That's a good one.
Galloway declared that the whole scandal was a big lie and the fault of the (you guessed it) "Zionists."
According to the London Telegraph, Galloway engaged in other flirtations: "Under the tutelage of Galloway, Dundee -- that austere and generally depressed city on the north shore of the Tay -- twinned itself with Nablus on the West Bank of the Jordan. It was an unlikely union that saw the PLO flag flying over the Gothic splendour of Dundee's municipal buildings, but it quickly took on a farcical air when, as part of the twinning ceremony, the Mayor of Nablus was presented with a crate of whisky and a kilt by the Scottish delegation. What use a strictly teetotal Muslim, both of whose legs had been blown away in a terrorist explosion, would have had for whisky and kilts was never made clear."
Last we heard, the propaganda pimp was still at it. At an anti-war rally in Twickenham, he declared that the whole scandal was a big lie and the fault of the (you guessed it) "Zionists."
Thanks to James Taranto's "Best of the Web" for much of the above material.
Recently AIPAC issued a statement that took credit for the fact that as of that date, 87 senators and 350 congressmen signed a letter urging President Bush not to pressure Israel on the "Road Map." It further requested that the President exact the strongest terms from the Arabs, before requiring any movement from Israel.The next day AIPAC formally issued its support for the "Road Map" with no strings attached. So which is it?
To paraphrase that wonderful old song, "Is they is or is they ain't" opposed?
Ruth King is a member of the executive committee of Americans For a Safe Israel.
(Continued from p.2)
take one step, then look backward and see if it's being implemented. We have to advance in an entire front, not just a line at a time." In other words Peres knows, and doesn't care, that the Palestinian Authority will never abide by any commitment it makes.And sure enough, less than two hours after seven Israelis were murdered in a bus attack in Jerusalem, Peres told Israel Radio that the PA's new Prime Minister could not be expected to fight Palestinian terrorists. Sharon, said Peres, was to blame for not offering Abu Mazen more concessions in their negotiating session.
On August 28, 2001, Peres declared: "Our struggle is against terror. And if you want to maintain an international united front, the subject must be terror. The subject can't be the Palestinians or Arafat, it must be the menace of terror itself." Now, in the Israel Radio interview, Peres announces the problem is "not terror -- it is suicide bombers."
As usual, writer Naomi Ragen has it right. While pundits heatedly debate whether Abbas or Arafat is in charge (as if it made any difference), she says the politically incorrect truth: "The problem is the Palestinian people, who supported Saddam Hussein, who are in favor of terror, who are anti-Semtic, who never cease their incitement to terror, and who have shown at every opportunity that they do not want a state, but the destruction of Israel and the continuation of terrorist attacks."
In a recent column, Daniel Pipes describes what he calls "war's new face" shaped by rules rewritten by the U.S. and Israel. A few examples: War used to be waged against a whole country. Now, says Pipes, authorities painstakingly distinguish between the government and the people. In traditional warfare, each side sought to inflict as many casualties as possible. Now the goal is to keep the other side's losses to a minimum. War used to mean beggaring the loser. Now the Bush administration and the Sharon government rehabilitate the opposing side. Pipes sums up by saying that Western operations against non-Western states now resemble police raids more than warfare, with the Western governments the police, local tyrants the criminals and the subject population the victims.
Pipes says only that the new rules take us into
[(Continued on p.12)]
June 2003 - 11 - Outpost