The chink in the Galloway armour

Two comments on my debate with Gorgeous George.

First, you will note that he kept raising Israel. In so far as he was making an intellectual point at all, it was an utterly irrelevant one. I did not raise Israel because my arguments for toppling Saddam were not about Israel.

He has no independent reason for thinking that the defence of Israel is part of my case for invading Iraq - I have never written that or said it. He simply assumed that Israel must be the issue because I am Jewish. I think this extraordinary.

Second I stumbled across something interesting in our exchanges over his famous "Sir, I salute you" comments.

Galloway responds to every criticism with a flat denial that it is his position. He responds to the "Sir I salute you" attack with the absurd suggestion that he was saluting the people of Iraq.

But there was one attack he did not choose to respond to. Three times (not on the clip unfortunately) I pointed out that he congratulated the President on people naming their children Saddam. He said nothing when I said that, simply ignoring it.

I am persuaded by this that these comments about naming children are his real weakness and that he hasn't thought of a reply to them yet.

Comments

[willy]

Here's one way to dispose of Galloway's "sir, I salute" actually referring to the Iraqi people. Stand in front of him and say "Sir, I salute your venality, your utter lack of morals, and your crawling up to dictators" and then when he sues the pants off you, claim you were actually talking to the British people. Might work.

[Jim]

May I say that I find your use of the word 'chink' unacceptable?

One of my son's best friends father is from China

[John A Thomson]

Gorgeous George could easily counteract many of these arguments by simply stating he was fluffing up Saddam’s ego to win favour and have his arguments at the time be more effective. I’m sure no one would find it unpalatable to think he was sucking up to avert war, death and the catastrophic collapse of Iraq. Don’t know why he hasn’t found this arguing point so far!

Perhaps he will use it now if he spots this comment, presuming of course he reads your blog :-).