Opinion

Article distorts Galloway statements

Last Wednesday's Badger Herald contained three severe distortions of my statements concerning George Galloway, an outspoken antiwar member of the British Parliament who recently spoke on the UW campus. First, the article states, "Barrett … does not necessarily agree with Galloway's bold antiwar statements." This is false. I stated that I do not necessarily agree with everything Galloway may have said, but I made it clear that I fully agree with his strong opposition to the war.

Second, the article states, "Barrett acknowledges Galloway has a history of siding with Saddam Hussein and terrorist forces." This too is false. I stated that this was Scott Suder's view of Hussein, not mine. In fact, I strongly objected to this characterization of Galloway, saying that Suder was using it to discredit him.

Indeed, this is the main thrust of every other interview I have given, the evidence for which is contained in a radio interview with Wisconsin Public Radio and an op-ed piece I wrote to the Capital Times, both of which are available on the Havens Center website. Third, the article states, "Barrett added Galloway … began to sympathize with [Hussein] after [Hussein] lost the United States' and Britain's support." I never made such a statement.

Instead, I stated that in striking contrast to the United States and Britain, Galloway has a long history of opposition to Hussein, and that he is outraged that those who once supplied Hussein with weapons of mass destruction would denounce him for meeting with Hussein in 1994 as part of an effort to lift sanctions, and giving a speech that sounded as though he was praising Hussein.

I mentioned that Galloway has lived to regret that speech, but I took no position of my own on this. I simply stated what Galloway has said about it, without either endorsing it or challenging it.

To learn my views in my own words, as well as those of Scott Suder and George Galloway, The Badger Herald readers can find them at the Havens Center website.

Patrick Barrett ([email protected]) is administrative director of the A. E. Havens Center. The A. E. Havens Center is available online at www.havenscenter.org.

Have a thought? We welcome your input, but please be polite and stay on topic wherever possible. Your comment may be deleted if it is inappropriately off topic or promotional or if it is unnecessarily rude or contains personal attacks. We may delete comments for other reasons as well. Just keep it simple and focus on your points as respectfully as possible.

We allow and encourage comments employing satire, wit and irony to make points. Do not flag comments just because you disagree. Flagged comments will be immunized from further flagging unless they stray far from the guidelines and do not add to the discussion. Before flagging a comment you think is offensive, consider your time might be better spent rebutting it than censoring it.

blog comments powered by Disqus

2 older comments

user-pic

As Galloway makes clear, he opposed Saddam mostly because Saddam was being used to counterbalance the Iranian revolutionaries, to the benefit of the Western world.

When Saddam was slaughtering Shiites in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War, Galloway was on board. When he was trying to cheat on the sanctions in order to build weapons of mass destruction, he had Galloway’s famous support. But preventing Islamic fundamentalists from imposing their 7th-century dictatorship on the world? Well, Galloway drew the line at that.

Benefit to the Western world is the one thing the quisling left cannot tolerate.

user-pic

‘Galloway is a hot, blustering bully - but I’m staying on his case until the very end’

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/18/ngall18.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/09/18/ixnewstop.html

Donate