Anatomy of a smear

As some of you may know, Norm Coleman is a Republican US senator from Minnesota. He's also quite ambitious. Most politicians are ambitious. But the paradox about Americans is that while we may expect politicians to be ambitious, we also expect them to not come across as ambitious. If they do, they seem like opportunistic slimeballs. Sen. Coleman is one of those.

The nakedly ambitious Coleman is an eager lapdog for the Bush administration. He earlier led the administration's assault against UN secretary-general Kofi Annan. He called for Annan's resignation for sins significantly less grave than those of his beloved president.

Now, Coleman is continuing his smear campaign against all enemies, real and imagined, of the administration's policies. The Senate permanent subcommittee on investiations, chaired by Coleman, issued a report on corruption in the oil-for-food program. The report accused British member of parliament George Galloway and former French interior minister Charles Pasqua of being paid off by Saddam Hussein's regime in exchange for working against sanctions.

I do not know if Galloway and Pasqua are guilty of Coleman's accusations, though both flat out deny the claims. The idea that there could possibly be corruption and deceit in activities involving the oil industry is almost inconceivable.

But what's most revealing is the methodology used by the committee.

Galloway blasted the Senate investigation, which he said had never written to him, spoken to him, or responded to his offers to testify.

The controversial, and recently re-elected, parliamentarian added that it was "patently absurd" to think that, as an MP being closely watched by UK security services, he could have become an "oil billionaire" on the sly.

Let me get this straight: Coleman's committee accused somebody of serious wrongdoing but flat out refused to let that person formally answer the charges against him. If Coleman had overwhelming evidence of Galloway's guilt, what did he have to fear in letting the British MP testify? Then again, that assumes that getting at the truth was one of Coleman's objectives.

Coleman is focused yet again on scoring cheap political points against anyone who dares disagree with his masters while attacking that person's reputation rather without allowing them to respond. It shows how malevolent types like him and others in Washington are more interested in advancing their agenda via ideologically driven character assassination smoke screens than getting at any semblance of truth.



Update: The committee today finally decided to accept Galloway's repeated requests to testify. This AFTER their report was released and conclusions published. Perhaps even the esteemed Sen. Coleman can be embarassed into doing things in the right way, however unwillingly and belatedly.