Oliver North, George Galloway, Ken Livingstone- what do these three have in common?
ANSWER- each of them was a high-ranking BAGMAN for their respective governments. What is a bagman. An individual that pretends to be an unofficial link to difficult or unpopular regimes, but is actually working in a disguised official capacity. Iran, Iraq, and the IRA all needed bagmen, for obvious reasons. The bagman requires 'plausible deniability' if any dare suggest that his actions are officially sanctioned.

A side-effect of 'plausible-deniability' is that more naive members of the public, easily taken-in by the cover given to the bagman by carefully placed distraction propaganda in the mass media, soon start to see the bagman as some kind of anti-government hero. When this accidental public support for the bagman has grown to a significant level, it becomes possible to assign the bagman another very useful role.

Given enough time, the bagman may well reveal their true colours, as they desire to be know as part of the ruling establishment. You have seen this clearly with Livingstone, most recently in his sickening, evil attack at those that gave us the true facts about the New Reich murder of the Brazilian guy in the underground, and his total support for the murderous assault on the two muslim brothers, and the total destruction of their home.

Sometimes, the bagman may be hung out to dry, by cowardly members of his own team out to protect their own skins, eg., Oliver North.

However, circumstances may end up giving the bagman a vastly more important role. Blair knew that his act of AGGRESSIVE WAR (as in the supreme crime that the nazi's were found guilty of) against Iraq would lead to massive anti-war feelings. Protests were anticipated at such large levels, that anti-war parties would inevitably form, spelling doom for Blair at the polls, given his known level of support. This problem required a solution, and RESPECT was born, a state-controlled 'anti-war' party that would paint the anti-war movement as mostly 'militant islamic', and use this and other excuses to stand in so few seats during the national election that NO DAMAGE could statistically be done to Blair.

This party needed a leader, and Galloway was the obvious choice.

Now here's a clue for those of you that read my words and find foolish reason to dismiss them. THE GREATEST WEAPON A POLITICIAN USES IS CALLED ***LYING***. All politicians use LIES. The best, or most powerful, politicians, are those that use LIES most skillfully. This fact isn't even up for debate. THUS NOTHING THAT GALLOWAY HAS EVER SAID PROVES A SINGLE THING.

On the other hand, Galloway's actions speak volumes.Galloway's reputation has been enhanced, of course, by such episode like the forged Iraq evidence (apparently, when intelligence agencies fake evidence against Galloway, they raid their toddlers toy rubber printing set for the tools used to create the forgery), and the phoney US congess accusations (despite the US mistreatment of tens of thousands of visitors, Galloway psychically predicted his first class treatment, and KNEW that the US media would willingly help him humiliate people supposedly on Bush's side).

Ah, but Galloway was a genuine matey-boy with the Ba'ath regimes and sunnis, you say, and the invasion of Iraq has done no end of horrible harm to his former friends. Well, REID (remember him) was a genuine matey-boy to the very worst Serbs during the Bosnia war, and yet he backed Blair's war against Serbia over Kosovo to the max. It's this little thing that the very worst of politicians are reknown for, you see, and goes with that thing called LYING. You cannot deny the history of Reid, because there he is, larger than life, in his current role as Blair's attack-dog. Why anyone would deny the truth about Galloway is beyond me.

On Question Time, George Galloway did not condemn, but defended the extra-judicial execution of al Zarqawi in Iraq. He is glad this "murderer" was taken out, although the accusations against Zarqawi where never proven by any court. Clearly GG is happy to dispense with International Law and back Blair's policies, when it suits.

twilight's comments are quite plausible in this case.

The SWP are well known wealthy individuals who provide a state-controlled outlet for radical politics and they neutralise it and destroy it.

The only councillors Respect got elected were in Muslim areas which shows it to be the Islamic party that it is. Amazingly, the cringingly politically correct SWP have dropped all their radical feminist whinging about women's rights and gay rights in order to placate Muslims.

The SWP would NEVER make the same concessions to appeal to the white, working class. So, where do the white working class go, you guessed it - the BNP.

Votes for the far-right turn the working class against itself benefitting the ruling class, and the mainstream parties benefit because they can present themselves as radical and right-on. ie. "Don't vote for the nasty racists".

Galloway is a sham and so are the SWP. Galloway has overcome his expulsion from New Labour by being elected for Respect. Where will this opportunist go next?

I suspect that the Muslims will soon tire of Galloway and the SWP and will eventually return to Labour or the Liberals. Or Respect will degenerate into a party for Muslims proper, rather than the SWP sham of being anti-war and anti-privatisation.

A good example of how the left is destined to fail is the SSP, where Tommy Sheridan has been slandered by New Labour, Rupert Murdoch's press and police-spies and radical feminists in his own party. Tommy Sheridan was too popular so jealous rivals and political enemies got rid of him.

However, the SSP had many problems and Sheridan is also a wealthy person. So, I don't think the working class are at a great loss after the demise of Respect and the SSP.

There is no hope for the left and I believe that people are best served by looking after their own interests, because Respect and the SSP won't look after anyone but themselves!

I've got to laugh at the sad sectarian comments posted above.
Gallaoway being called an opportunist for example when he was one of only a handful of Labour MP's to oppose the war when it really counted.... before the invasion was launched.

He could have kept quiet or he could have muted his protest to a few ritual remarks instead he went on the stump and spoke at dozens of packed public meetings and huge marches against the illegal war and invasion.

He had to take on New Labour,the right wing press,the zionist lobby,the pro war muscular liberals,the wargang in the USA and the jihadis. As a mark of honour he was expelled from the Labour Party for calling on British soldiers to disobey illegal orders and for speaking at a meeting with an anti war speaker opposed to New Labour.

He took them on and emerged bloody at times but unbeaten as we can recall from his famous battle in the US senate.

Call Galloway what you will but he aint no opportunist.....he is an active ,articulate opponent of the war and a thorn in the side of New Labour as the Respect results in East London have shown. Thanks George!
ifor

Twilight should have stuck with Bush and Blair. He might have got away with it. He's been a fun read though...