The neconservative temptation beckoning Britain's bitter liberals

[muriel_volestrangler]

An article on the Henry Jackson Society, being set up in the UK to encourage neoconservatives (including the original usage - 'social democrats' who favour government spending and regulation at home, but also want to send the military abroard for 'muscular democracy').

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1646994,00.html

The home page: http://www-hjs.pet.cam.ac.uk/ (hosted at Peterhouse, Cambridge - not entirely surprising, given the political history of that college)

The Henry Jackson Society is a non-profit organisation that seeks to promote the following principles: that liberal democracy should be spread across the world; that as the world’s most powerful democracies, the United States and the European Union – under British leadership – must shape the world more actively by intervention and example; that such leadership requires political will, a commitment to universal human rights and the maintenance of a strong military with global expeditionary reach; and that too few of our leaders in Britain and the rest of Europe today are ready to play a role in the world that matches our strength and responsibilities.

The Henry Jackson Society intends, therefore, to provide a platform for much-needed discussion and research. It will attempt to mobilise support behind a principled policy of democratic realism. For further elaboration please see our Statement of Principles.

Oh God, they're trying to out-Blair Blair, or be the UK PNAC. Among the suspects:

Rt. Hon. Michael Ancram QC MP, Member of Parliament for Davizes; Shadow Secretary of State for Defence

Gerard Baker, Assitant Editor, The Times (the biggest pro-Bush wanker writing for a UK paper)

Colonel Tim Collins

Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6 during Iraq dossier scandals

Dr. Denis MacShane MP, Labour Member of Parliament for Rotherham

Lord Powell of Bayswater, Personal Advisor to the Prime Minister for Defence and Security, 1984-1991; Thatcher's right hand man

Dr. Jamie Shea, Deputy Assistant Secretary General for External Relations, NATO (chief PR during Serbia bombing)

Dr. Irwin Stelzer, Director of Economic Policy Studies, Hudson Institute; Rupert Murdoch's right hand man

Gisela Stuart MP, Labour Member of Parliament for Birmingham Edgbaston; Member of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee

David Willetts MP, Member of Parliament for Havant; Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Industry


There's a bunch of evil bastards in there, and 2 Labour MPs joining them marks them as worth shunning too. I hope to god they don't gain any influence.

[Dead_Parrot]

1. "In the eyes of Muslims...

...the west is associated less with freedom and democracy than with white phosphorus, Abu Ghraib and Ariel Sharon."

Sadly, I suspect this bunch of wankers don't read the Granuiad or DU, and this point will pass them by completely.

[Taxloss]

2. Chilling stuff indeed - good find Mu.

I had a feeling that the Aaronovitch tendency would turn malignant on us. This is one of my huge problems with the Gallowayite/Swopper anti-war "movement" - it goes far too far and hands an easy moral victory to the "Harry's Place"-Johann Hari-Mark Steyn-David Aaronovitch school of casual adventurism. These neocons will get us all killed. I am deadly serious about that - they are ideologues and pose a threat to Western civilisation.

What's needed is a balancing ideology. The US didn't have one, allowing a swift PNACer victory. Project for the New Old World, anyone? Neo-isolationism? The EuroPacific plan?

[julianer]

6. Are you suggesting

that opponents of the war should restrain their opposition for fear of provoking a response from the war's supporters?

I don't know how to oppose the war and not go 'too far' in that. Any advice?

[Taxloss]

7. No, it's the "baggage" that Respect & Co carry that I object to,

not opposition to the war. I strongly oppose the war, but one of the reasons I opposed it in the first place was that once we were in, we'd never be able to get out, which is the situation now. Although I would love to see British troops withdraw and leave the coalition of the willing consisting of the USA, Eritrea and Poland, it's simply not going to happen.

However, I strongly dislike Galloway's pro-Bashar Assad, pro-hardliner rhetoric and his cosying-up to Muslim hardliners in Britain, his vile statements about Israel, and his apparent ambivalence to certain acts of terrorism. I think it's not contradictory to oppose both the war and Islamic extremism.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Taxloss]

9. If you read my first post in this thread, you'll see that

I have zero sympathy for Harry's Place or any of the other hawks. But that doesn't automatically mean I believe every word of Lenin's Tomb now, does it?

Galloway described Israelis as "foreigners" "raping" Jerusalem.

Galloway praised Assad and his "democracy". (Recently, too.)

Respect's leadership played down gay rights in its manifesto and left out women's rights altogether in order to appease conservative Muslims and provoked a grassroots revolt as a consequence. (Also recently.) This is not the first time petty communalism has trumped progressivism and social cohesion in Respect policies.

Galloway failed to vote on the the terror bill when it passed by one vote. This is directly contrary to the interests of the constituents he was elected to represent. This is not the first major vote he has missed - he is one of the most consistently absent MPs.

In fact, since his election, what exactly has Galloway achieved other than entertainingly besting a US senator?

And I dislike this Yank tendency to suggest that anyone who takes a differing perspective on something must somehow be a brainwashed, slavish "Kool-Ade" drinker. It's not healthy for debate.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RogueTrooper]

11. And why are the smears from Harry's place

baseless? partisan, certainly but baseless?

By baseless I am assuming you mean "without foundation in fact"?

[julianer]

12. That is right

Unless you can provide me with evidence of Respect's communalism, anti-gay shenanigans and 'support' for dictators - then they are 'without foundation in fact'.

It would be easy for people to actually look up Respect's position on this stuff by looking at their website - all policies and conference resolutions are there.

Unless, that is, anyone is implying that Respect is somehow advocating policies other than the ones it advocates, if you see what I mean.

[Taxloss]

14. See unlucky #13 n/t

[RogueTrooper]

15. Don't know what communalism is

Some Advice: I am not the poster taxloss. Please do not confuse us when you are making your points. However, I believe that post 13 will cover those points.

Mine was that Harry's Place launches partisan attacks on George Galloway not baseless ones.

[julianer]

16. Apologies

I'm multi-threading.

[Taxloss]

13. Baseless, eh?

On Gay rights, not according to Respect's own members: http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/2005nov/2202.htm

"LONDON, November 22, 2005 – Grassroots members of George Galloway’s left-wing Respect party have condemned as “unacceptable” the decision of the party leadership to exclude lesbian and gay rights from their manifesto for the general election earlier this year."

Read the story. Presumably they are also Harry's Place regulars. So there's one example of petty communalism.

And there's this stunning example of a communalist approach:

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=15654192%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=ellman%2dstunned%2dby%2dgalloway%2ds%2d%2disrael%2ds%2dmp%2d%2dslur-name_page.html

"CONTROVERSIAL politician George Galloway is targeting Louise Ellman's Riverside seat, saying she is "Israel's MP on Merseyside"."

Then there were the lies circulated in some local press that Labour would ban Halal meat. And here's George's own smirking attitude to communalism:

'"Allah willing, all will go well on Thursday," he said, followed by, "the word 'religion' has never crossed my lips."'

http://www.opendemocracy.net/xml/xhtml/articles/2479.html

Jerusalem? Let's take it from George:

"I said countries occupied by UK and US troops are being raped by them," he said. "Jerusalem and Baghdad are in the hands of foreigners who are doing their will."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4744685.stm

I believe that his clearly says the Israeli government are "foreigners" on a par with the forces in Iraq. I'd love to hear you gloss that. He could have removed the words "Jerusalem and" and the statement would have been strong, but perfectly fair.

On Syria, let's hear it from George again:

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2259592005

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4451848.stm

And from Amnesty, a nest of Harry's Place regulars:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-syr/index

And even at Human Rights Watch! They really get everywhere.

http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=syria

As for the man's voting record, Hansard, theyworkforyou, Ask Aristotle and any number of other sites will back that up.

So if you could point out the dishonesty there I'd be obliged. Being on the left does not mean devotion to Gorgeous George and I think you should take a very hard look at the politics you are defending. This sort of rubbish is the last thing we want on the left or in British politics in general. And it is precisely this that empowers the moron hawks at Harry's Place and loathsome leftist neocons.

In fact, I'm wondering now if I shouldn't be more angry about what you have accused me of. My dislike of Galloway aside, I am persistently and vocally anti-war, pro Palestine and strong left. I simply believe that Israel has a right to exist as an independent Jewish state, and that what the UK needs is less racial and religious politics, not more. And if those positions are inconsistent with your view of leftism, then so be it.

[julianer]

17. I suppose asking you to justify

your smears would only lead to more smears.

Can you compare the points you made in your original attack on Galloway. Just to remind you:

'However, I strongly dislike Galloway's pro-Bashar Assad, pro-hardliner rhetoric and his cosying-up to Muslim hardliners in Britain, his vile statements about Israel, and his apparent ambivalence to certain acts of terrorism. I think it's not contradictory to oppose both the war and Islamic extremism.'

Your later effort said:

'Galloway described Israelis as "foreigners" "raping" Jerusalem.

Galloway praised Assad and his "democracy". (Recently, too.)

Respect's leadership played down gay rights in its manifesto and left out women's rights altogether in order to appease conservative Muslims and provoked a grassroots revolt as a consequence. (Also recently.) This is not the first time petty communalism has trumped progressivism and social cohesion in Respect policies...'

So, on your first post, we need evidence for 'pro-Bashar Assad'(do you mean supporting Syria against imperialism or just 'that Bashar, he's great'?), 'pro-hardliner rhetoric'(??), 'cosying-up to Muslim hardliners'(who, when, where, why), 'vile statements about Israel', and 'apparent ambivalence to certain acts of terror', all very serious charges that need to be supported by anyone interested in honest debate.

On your second you need to supply the evidence for your assertions that Respect 'play down gay rights in the manifesto' and 'left out women's rights altogether', as well as the claims about 'raping Jerusalem' and 'Syrian democracy'.

None of this is supported by the links you give above. For the rest of it you are repeating other people's smears as if they are true. Where is the evidence for communalism?

I presume your reference to Elman is an attempt to smear Galloway as 'anti-semitic'. If so it is predictable and equally dishonest.

What this comes down to is this: you disagree with Galloway and Respect but instead of arguing in a democratic and truthful fashion you simply smear him, just like anyone from the right.

[Taxloss]

18. What exactly do you want? A signed confession from the man?

And I resent your slurs that I am using the language or tactics of the right. Respect and its members I have a lot of time for. Galloway and I share many views. I just dislike him intensely. It's your manichean "you're with us or against us" worldview that is fouling democratic and truthful debate here. Galloway said what he said - you justify it. The links back what I said - I suggest reading them. The gay rights story doesn't just say what I said - Respect MEMBERS said what I said in a resolution. That Assad, he's just great? Well he said Syria should be proud to have Assad as a leader, is that good enough? How very humanitarian. But then he's always been courageously and indefatigably humanitarian, hasn't he? He ran War On Want into the ground, but hey, that was a long time ago, right? And he's a Hamas fan, and Respect is happy to invite Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi to Britain. I call those hardliners. What's the Respect term? Moderates?

Now, saying that Israelis are foreigners raping Jerusalem and on a par with occupation forces in Iraq is a direct attack on the legitimacy of the Israeli state. Israel has a right to exist, and I call Galloway's position on it vile.

As for Ellman, you presumably approve of what Galloway said? You think it's OK? Please tell me if you think it's OK. And I didn't accuse him of anti-semitism and it's entertaining that that should be the first charge you bring out. He said what he said. I think we can all read his words and make up our own minds. And do you even have any idea what communalism means if that can't see a pattern of it in Respect's behaviour?

You Gallowayites have heaped all your political dreams and aspirations on this one man, this great orator, and I think most of you didn't even know him before 9/11. I knew him before then, in the days of War on Want and afterwards. He is not the great white hope for the anti-war cause. You need to take off the blinkers and apply a bit of critical thought to this man. If any other politician had done half this, you would be screaming for blood, but no, the DU fondness for lock-step personality cults strikes again.

[julianer]

19. You are now attacking Galloway on different grounds

than before.

Amongst the mess of your reply I will pick out a few things. Respect members saying that Respect's GLBT policy is anti-gay is not the same as the policy being anti-gay or Galloway being anti-gay. That is someone's opinion, but you presented it as fact. Thus it is a smear. Similarly with Assad, you stated as fact that Galloway praised Syria's democracy, but now you have changed this without apology or reference. That is a smear (in fact two because now you impugn his humanitarianism).

Qaradawi. Is this the chap invited to London by the Mayor? Is he equally in your bad books? Do you attack him as well?

What is wrong with supporting Hamas? I didn't know that supporting Palestinian liberation was something to be ashamed of on the left, it is usually seen as a badge of pride and Hamas are seen as legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people - after all they vote for them.

Do you think that Israel has the right to occupy Palestinian land? Galloway's position on this is unexceptional on the left. You should know that. By the way Israel, like the UK or the USSR, has no right to exist. Countries are changeable thankfully.

Ellman. So what did he say that was so communalist? It seems to me that you don't understand the word. Communalism means favouring one community over another and would be reflected in party policy and literature - if it were true you would be able to find it. Apart from that, it is interpretation - some may wish to interpret his comments as being anti-semitic, but leftists would see it as anti-zionist. Ellman is a zionist, I believe.

I have no particular illusions in Galloway, though I have noticed people often need to erect this straw man of the blinded supplicant at Galloway's knees, yet you say you 'have a lot of time for Respect members'. How can both these things be true? You pick which you'd rather since it is you in two minds, apparently.

Now listen here taxloss, I can see no reason why we can't discuss anything you like about Respect, Galloway, Israel, Syria, Iraq or any damned thing but this is impossible unless you are willing to accept that I act and argue in good faith. I am not lying to you or trying to mislead you about Respect. If I thought that any of the things you said were true I would have nothing to do with Galloway or Respect. When I hear these allegations the first thing I do is check to find if there is any truth in them.

The man travels the country and the world trying to lead anti-war left forces. If there were other better leaders I would be very happy, but I'm under no illusions about the sort of smear campaign they would also face.

In the meantime Galloway is in the frame and forward we go to the next smear....

[Taxloss]

21. How about you choose the grounds?

Since you are simply attacking the way I'm conducting my argument rather than the substance of my argument, you pick what you would like to discuss re Galloway.

[julianer]

22. Please, play nicely now

I am not simply attacking the way you are debating as you well know. I am accusing you of baseless smearing and you have so far not been able to back up the claims you made earlier.

It is not my responsibility to refute smears (you cannot prove a negative) and if you cannot back up your claims you must, in all honesty, change your mind, or at least express your doubts about Galloway in a reasonable way.

You seem to have misunderstood my previous point about discussion - probably my poor phrasing - I have no deep need to discuss Galloway with you, I would merely like to have an area of debate be it Respect or Galloway or Palestine or Syria, that is uncontaminated by endless smearing generated, at root, by our joint enemies.

[Taxloss]

23. But one cannot deal with Galloway without dealing with criticisms of him.

I know that he is the target of a witchhunt and a smear campaign But when you deal with folks like Qaradawi, you're not really making it easy on yourself. Dr Q is a pro-murder homophobic scumbag. Livingstone - I man I greatly admire and who I have voted for twice, and would do so again - erred in this respect as well, hosting him. The difference is that I see a lot of redeeming features about Livingstone, and few in Galloway.

Re: Syria, he said Syrians were "free people". Syria is a one party state where dissidents are jailed and tortured. I do not support regime change, but I think Assad and his government are shits.

Re: Palestine, I would love to see a free, viable Palestinian state. But it must be alongside a free, viable Israel. No other solution should even be countenanced. Galloway appears to think otherwise. Or have I misread the foreigners raping remark?

Re: Ellman, You appear to see no problem. I'd think about that position if I were you. One of the problems I have with Galloway and his ilk is that they make it so very, very easy to tar the left with the brush of anti-semitism with throwaway slurs like that. The Ellman remark completely plays into "the Jews aren't of this country" race slur. He could have attacked her zionism fairly and justly; instead, he accused her of being a fifth-columnist for a foreign power.

Now, I haven't a clue if Galloway is an anti-semite or not. I think he may be, but if he is he's not a very committed one. But by hitting the right notes he's found a great way to stir up his base. And he's always been good at stirring up a base.

Now, you see all these things as smearing - but they stem directly from the words and deeds of George Galloway. If I am being honest with you, the War On Want thing hit me on a personal level and nothing can change the fact that I have disliked him ever since. And I am not Jewish, but I worry that the Israeli state is being demonised in the eyes of the British left. The world needs Israel, in my opinion. I hope that demonstrates why I dislike this anti-Israel "mood music".

As for everything else ... both parties shamed themselves in the Bethnal Green & Bow. Galloway did miss the key terror vote, which I consider disgraceful:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article324643.ece

I hope this helps to explain my position. I want to have a sensible debate about this, but if you dismiss these concerns, which I consider honest and genuine, as baseless smears then such a debate is impossible.

[julianer]

24. Ok

Re: Syria. Respect's position is that all countries have the right to national self-determination. Syria is under threat from the US and Israel and Respect sees it's position as supporting Syria against imperialism. Naturally, as with Iraq, people are going to deliberately confuse anti-imperialism with support for whichever 'dictator' is under threat. But there is no alternative. You cannot sit back and allow the US to invade countries without complaining. It's a question of principle.

Re: Palestine. Respect's policy is the normal two state solution proposed (up until Bush and Blair) by the entire international community. I'm not going to condemn someone for using emotive language about Israel's occupation. It's an illegal occupation which follows ethnic cleansing of a population, for heaven's sake.

Re: Ellman. Respect is an anti-Zionist organisation. Ellman is a Zionist MP and advocate for Israel's occupation of Palestine. If we choose not to criticise or campaign against her for fear of exciting accusations of anti-semitism then we would just be spineless and no use in the fight for Palestinian freedom. We have to counter the accusations by asking for evidence of anti-semitism, as I have done here. There is no evidence of anti-semitism in the party, though this will not stop Zionists from attempting their smears. Regardless of Galloway's comments the nature of the smear will not change

Of course Galloway is not an anti-semite. Do you really think we would have anything to do with him if he was? You are showing signs of racism yourself by imagining that 'his base' (do you mean muslims?) will be 'stirred up' by him. You should have a think about that.

These smears do not spring directly from Galloway's words and deeds. They spring directly from people deliberately twisting his words and deeds for their own ends.

I don't believe the British left has ever demonised Israel beyond what it deserves. But over the decades there has been no sign of anti-semitism and there still isn't. I agree that Galloway should have been at the vote. I don't know what happened at War on Want but I believe there was an enquiry which found laxness but no wrongdoing.

[Taxloss]

25. Ok ...

Re: Syria. False dichotomy. Hating a regime does not mean it's a good thing to praise its leader and to say its people should be proud of him. Nor does hating a regime automatically mean invading it, and thinking Assad is a piece of shit does not mean that I would support such an invasion in the slightest.

Syria's "the right to national self-determination". How lovely that right must be for the abstract notion of Syria and the machinery of its loathsome state. What about the right of Syria's people to self-determination? Does Respect support their rights to write newspaper articles and campaign for democracy without being imprisoned, beaten up, tortured and separated from their families? Those rights are within the give of Assad, the leader Galloway respects so much. Whose side is Respect on - the thuggish elite or the Syrian people?

Re: Israel. "I'm not going to condemn someone for using emotive language about Israel's occupation." Occupation of where? Regarding the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, the Golan and parts of Lebanon, you'd be right. The Israeli land-grab in the West Bank and the wall are despicable and illegal. But we were talking about Jerusalem. Israel has as much right to a share in Jerusalem as the Palestinians.

Re: Ellman. False dichotomy again. Criticising her Zionism is fine. Criticising it the way Galloway did is not. By all means call Ellman the "Zionist MP for Merseyside" or the "Likud MP for Merseyside", but instead he chose to say "Israel's MP for Merseyside". Jewish, Zionist, Israeli - it's so easy to get them all mixed up, isn't it?

"There is no evidence of anti-semitism in the party, though this will not stop Zionists from attempting their smears." - So anyone who feels very uncomfortable about Galloway's rhetoric on Israel is automatically a Zionist? It's such a flexible word!

I don't know if Galloway is an anti-semite or not. As I said. But, frankly, I do believe that in coded anti-semitism, he has found a tiger to ride, and a tiger can take you a long way, but eventually it decides the direction and you'll find it hard to get off.

Re: War on Want, no wrongdoing was found. Galloway gave a lot of money back to the organisation, which suggests that maybe he shoud not have had it in the first place. Within the old hands of the charitable sectore, the consensus is that Galloway wrecked the place. Certainly that was the opinion of many of WoW's former employees. Charities trade on one thing: trust. They have to be squeaky clean, because even a hint of fraud, graft or squandering makes the donations dry up. Even if Galloway didn't do anything technically wrong or illegal, he squandered away the trust that people had in WoW. And it could not continue. Maybe those donations went to reputable charities. However, one of the reasons charities complement their harsh regulatory environment with rigid self-discipline is because if someone feels their money has been mis-spent by a charity, they tend to spend less on all charities.

And now you place your trust in this man. I hope Respect has good auditors.

[julianer]

26. It's fine you disagree

Of course I think you are wrong about the 'right of self-determination' - that's in the UN charter I believe, so Galloway is only defending international law, unlike its supposed guardians who are seeking to overthrow it. You need to take a stand on positions like this and it is better that they are based on principle rather than expediency. Expediency over principle is how we arrived here.

I think you will find that Jerusalem is illegally occupied also.

Re: Ellman. Zionists make no distinction between Israel, jewishness and Zionism. They conflate all three and if you attack any of them you are 'anti-semitic'. Now, you have no evidence about anti-semitism (because there isn't any) but you play this game just as well as a zionist, using innuendo.

Present evidence, damn you. You are incapable of letting a chance to smear pass you by. Once again 'I don't know if Galloway is an anti-semite...but' i.e. you have no evidence but you want to tag Galloway and me, by inference, as anti-semitic. If you knew anything about me you wouldn't say such things. You are 'riding the tiger' of rightist smear and innuendo. It is deeply unpleasant from someone on the left. We are supposed to respect truth and accuracy.

WoW - same story. No evidence, more smears.

I am rapidly tiring of this correspondence - it is just an opportunity for you to carry on smearing Galloway regardless of evidence.

[julianer]

27. One last word about your smears

It is racist to suggest that Galloway's supporters are likely to be 'whipped up' by Galloway's remarks about Ellman. It implies that Galloway's supporters are excitable anti-semites just waiting to be let off the leash. Since Respect has won the support of significant sections of the Muslim population, it implies that Muslims are anti-semitic (this is the coded tiger that you are riding).

This is disgraceful really and you should withdraw it.

[Taxloss]

28. I withdraw the remark.

Something Galloway never does. Not that it would matter if he did.

Incidentally, you appear to be accusing me of racism, or at least Islamophobia. Classic Gallowayite smear based on selective reading.

Let's have a look at a bit of evidence that emerged today:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/otherparties/story/0,9061,1650526,00.html

Gay group tells Galloway to cut ties with donor

Gay activists have called on George Galloway's Respect party to dissociate itself from a donor amid claims he is linked to a party that advocates homophobia.

Dr Mohammed Naseem stood for Respect in Perry Barr, Birmingham, at the last election and donated £15,457 to the party - 29% of its campaign budget.

But Dr Naseem is also an executive member of, and home affairs spokesman for, the Islamic Party of Britain, whose website says: "Islam condemns and outlaws homosexuality. As far as Islamic law is concerned, the state does not interfere in the privacy of people's homes, but it would need to safeguard public decency by preventing any public advocacy for homosexuality." Lewd public displays would attract the death penalty.

-----------

"Smears" emanating from that renowned right-wing zionist group OutRage and that renowned right-wing zionist newspaper the Guardian.

That Zionist conspiracy stretches everywhere, doesn't it?

On edit: I tire of this as well. We're both on the left, I know you're no anti-semite and I hope you realise I am no Islamophobe, we're incapable of altering each other's position and I suggest we call a halt. You can have the last word, and let's shake on it.

[julianer]

29. I'm all for peace

I accept you are no islamophobe, but I suggest that the smears on Galloway are generated with Islamophobia as a target. If you visit Harry's Place, as I'm sure you do, you will be struck by the two repeated themes - Galloway is evil and Islam is evil.

It's a game that people are playing - there is the chance of a successful left party for the first time in years and the floodgates open.

I have no desire to rebut the Outrage smears - though I have assured you that Respect is not homophobic in any way, but I will provide a link where you can read a very in depth discussion on the matter. Make your own mind up.

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2005/11/tatchell-and-pink-veiled-islamophobia.html

If you read it you will find out what Dr Naseem really thinks about gays and what Respect thinks about Tatchell and Outrage.

[Taxloss]

30. Thanks.

I'll read.

My most recent remarks in the other thread are intemperate and rather childish. I'm regretting them at the moment. Let's leave this.

[julianer]

31. Pax

[mr blur]

3. "Liberal Democracy"? "Democratic Realism"?

So many foreigners out there need to be taught how to live, need civilizing for their own good. And "we" are just the people to do it.

Same shit, different arseholes.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

4. Guardian blog: "Inside the Hawks nest"

(...)

So far, so neoconservative. Still, it would be wrong to gloss the HJS as simply an apologist for the Bush administration. It is certainly anti-UN (believing that "only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that any international organisation which admits undemocratic states on an equal basis is fundamentally flawed") and it is certainly pro-Nato, but it calls for the EU to maintain a "strong military" of its own - albeit under British leadership. Significantly, the pro-EU former minister for Europe, Denis MacShane, has signed up. So far, the society has concentrated on Middle Eastern democracy (and, yesterday, the Guardian's "shame" in "pandering" to Noam Chomsky). Human rights abuses in China, touched upon by George Bush during his visit, get less attention. But although it looks and feels Blairite, the HJS is preparing to move on. For those curious about just how neoconservative a Cameron-led opposition would be, the society will be worth watching.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2005/11/22/inside_the_hawks_nest.html

Glad to see they carry Oliver Kamm's (also a signatory) fantastic line from May this year:

"Iraq was the most far-sighted and noble act of British foreign policy since the founding of NATO."

http://www-hjs.pet.cam.ac.uk/sections/britain_world/document.2005-05-04.8952410566

Also nice to know which side Richard Dearlove's butter is spread. That may go someway to explaining the Mi6 side of the pre-war intelligence.

[fedsron2us]

5. Can't help thinking they have come to the party just as the drink ran out

I suspect that neither Britain or the US are going to be able to afford the cost of miltary adventurism over the long term. Nor do I see any sign that the other states within the European Union are going to take any notice of British leadership. As ever the views of UK politicians, academics and former generals count for very little since the agenda will ultimately be set in Washington. If the US decides that it is going to revert to an isolationist foreign policy then this little gathering will prove to be completely irrelevant.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

20. The Henry Jackson Society reply to the Guardian article

David Clark's article on The Henry Jackson Society (Comment, November 21) makes some rather spurious claims. First, his assertion that The Henry Jackson Society, as an intellectual project, is "rightwing" or "neoconservative" is false. We are non-partisan across the board. Our signatories, patrons and organising committee members represent strands throughout the political spectrum, and we have a number of supporters from all main political parties.

Second, we have chosen to invoke Henry "Scoop" Jackson's legacy because he believed that democratic nations should consider the internal character of foreign governments when dealing with them. There is, he argued, a qualitative difference between democratic governments and undemocratic regimes. Democracies should, therefore, seek, wherever possible, to advance the spread of democracy, using all realistic and available means - not only on idealistic grounds, but also because this is the surest guarantee of their security. Such a cause is undoubtedly a progressive one, and our supporters realise that such a commitment is not something which should divide left and right.

Third, we believe that Britain should never return to the sort of pessimist-defeatist thinking in foreign policy that characterised the years of John Major's government. This reduced Britain's standing and power in the world, prevented it from acting for the common good, and damaged its relations with the rest of Europe and the United States. Instead, we wish to see Britain and Europe maintain a robust and principled foreign policy, which promotes democracy and human rights throughout the world. This is the best way to enhance our own nation's and continent's security, as well as that of our democratic partners. We call this "democratic geopolitics".
Alan Mendoza
James Rogers
Gideon Mailer
John Bew
Martyn Frampton
The Henry Jackson Society

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1648718,00.html

(there's a couple of other good letters at the link, but I'm not sure what the copyright restrictions are.)

[Briar]

32. All this talk about

sitting in qualitative judgement over other states and encouraging the spread of (an undefined but presumably Western, capitalist) democracy sounds pretty neocon to me.