The Badger Herald: Opinion: Article distorts Galloway statements

Updated Tuesday, December 8, 2009, at 8:21 a.m.

Madison, Wis.:
Light Snow Fog/Mist and 28.0° F

Opinion

Article distorts Galloway statements

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Also by Letters to the Editor:

Clegg absurd, biased on CFACT (May 5, 2009)
Fund peer tutors (April 28, 2009)
UW policy consistent with nation (April 23, 2009)
Biddy's initiative not worth it (April 20, 2009)
A plan for better advising (April 20, 2009)

By Letters to the Editor
Tuesday, September 20, 2005 12:00 a.m.

2 Vote 0 Votes

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 (pbarrett@ssc.wisc.edu) is administrative director of the A. E. Havens Center. The A. E. Havens Center is available online at www.havenscenter.org.

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Anonymous | September 20, 2005 7:35 AM | Reply

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.

Anonymous | September 20, 2005 12:55 PM | Reply

'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