Galloway says murder of Blair would be ‘justified’
By Oliver Duff
Published: 26 May 2006
The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair.
In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: “Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber – if there were no other casualties – be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?”
Mr Galloway replied: “Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it – but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq – as Blair did.”
The Labour MP Stephen Pound, a persistent critic of Mr Galloway during previous controversies, told The Sun that the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow in east London was “disgraceful and truly twisted”.
He said: “These comments take my breath away. Every time you think he can’t sink any lower he goes and stuns you again. It’s reprehensible to say it would be justified for a suicide bomber to assassinate anyone.”
The Stop the War Coalition criticised Mr Galloway: “We don’t agree with Tony Blair’s actions, but neither do we agree with suicide bombers or assassinations.”
Just hours after four bomb attacks killed 52 people on London’s transport system last July, Mr Galloway said the city had “paid the price” for Mr Blair’s decision to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Ten thousand Osama bin Ladens have been created at least by the events of the last two years,” he told MPs in the Commons that day.
Mr Pound said at the time: “I thought George had sunk to the depths of sickness in the past but this exceeds anything he has done before.” The Armed Forces minister, Adam Ingram, accused the Respect MP of “dipping his poisonous tongue in a pool of blood”.
That’s one sick puppy! Clearly, Mr Galloway is a man consumed by hatred, hatred of the very system and country which has allowed him fame and prosperity and a public forum. He demonstrated his commitment to peace and freedom:
- Mr Galloway yesterday made a surprise appearance on Cuban television with the Caribbean island’s Communist dictator, Fidel Castro – whom he defended as a “lion” in a political world populated by “monkeys”.
Mr Galloway shocked panellists on a live television discussion show in Havana by emerging on set mid-transmission to offer passionate support for Castro. Looking approvingly into each others’ eyes, the pair embraced.
A war to rid the world of a brutal dictator, one who had slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people, brings Mr Galloway to claim that one of the leaders in the effort to rid the world of that brutal dictatorship could justifiably be killed, but the continued power of another brutal dictator, who has impoverished and terrorized his own people for almost fifty years, one who would throw Mr Galloway in prison to rot (assuming that he didn’t simply have him shot) had Mr Galloway been a Cuban
slave citizen and said the same thing about Fidel Castro, he has earned Mr Galloway’s passionate support.
Would someone please explain to me again why anyone in Britain would elect this serial idiot to represent them in the first place? Is this not something he can be censured for in front of the Parliament at the very least? I donâ€™t know the way things work in the British govâ€™t, but thereâ€™s got t be a way there for the Parliament to condemn this bonehead.
Me? I take it more seriously. I wrote about Joel Stein’s article in The Los Angeles Times last January, Warriors and Wusses, in which Mr. Stein said that no, he didn’t support the troops, because he could not support their mission. I said:
We are in Mr. Steinâ€™s debt. I spent part of the 2004 election season arguing in a mostly leftist e-mail group that to support the troops required wanting them to succeed, and desiring their success meant supporting something that would improve George Bushâ€™s reelection chances. I was told that no, it didnâ€™t mean that at all, even though one writer said, at one point, that if the deaths of American soldiers contributed to the electoral defeat of President Bush, they would have died for a good cause.
Well, Mr. Stein wrote publicly what so many of the leftists feel privately, but have been unwilling to say in public; perhaps a lot of them simply couldnâ€™t admit it to themselves. I think itâ€™s time for complete honesty here: those on the left who think that George Bush is a tremendous danger to the world ought to admit, to themselves and to the world, that they want the mission of the troops to fail.
And if that required increased deaths on the part of American troops, they ought to admit that such is a price they are willing to see our country pay.
I thought that Mr. Stein was being very honest about his beliefs; I found them repugnant, but I appreciated the honesty, and the courage it took for him to say what he believed in public, where he knew he would be exposing himself to ridicule and condemnation.
And while it’s more difficult to find anything to respect about Mr. Galloway, I appreciate his honesty as well. My real question is: how many other Britons feel the same way about assassinating Tony Blair, and how many Americans believe the same thing about President Bush?
While even the far-left whackos at the World Can’t Wait website claim that they only want to “Drive Out the Bush Regime,” one wonders (especially when you note that convicted cop-killer Mumia abu Jamal is one of their “endorsers”) if, in the depths of their souls they’d see the assassination of President Bush as either desirable or morally justified. And while conservative sites like Patterico and Sister Toldjah and Powerline certainly took note, the solidly liberal sites of The Daily Kos, MyDD, Oliver Willis and The Liberal Avenger have, at least thus far, completely ignored the story. I’m tempted to think that the site owners, even if they don’t think so themselves (and I’m pretty certain that LA doesn’t), would be concerned that the idea might just get some agreement from their commenters (especially the uncontrolled loonies who infest The Lost Kos.)
Am I wrong to be worried about this? Should I have dismissed it with a simple quip, the way Patterico did? Or could there be, out there, not talking, not admitting it, perhaps even to themselves, a group of Americans who hate President Bush so much that they’d prefer to see him assassinated than to leave office peacefully on January 20, 2009?