-
Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
George Galloway had vowed to give US senators "both barrels" and after sitting - coiled - through an hour-and-half of testimony against him, he unloaded all his ammunition.
Far from displaying the forelock-tugging deference to which senators are accustomed, Mr Galloway went on the attack.
He rubbished committee chairman Norm Coleman's dossier of evidence and stared him in the eye.
"Now I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer, you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice," the MP declared.
The whole room scanned Mr Coleman's face for a reaction. The senator shifted in his seat - nervously it seemed.
It was the first time a British politician had been interrogated as a hostile witness at the US Senate - but Mr Galloway cast himself not as the accused, but the accuser.
On stage at the heart of American power, he attacked the US-led war on Iraq and accused Washington of installing a "puppet" regime there.
'Lions' den'
The Scotsman launched into his opening statement with relish.
He had never received any money or any allocations of oil from Iraq. He was not, as the committee alleged, a supporter of Saddam Hussein.
"I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do, and than any member of the British or American governments do," he told the committee.
Mr Galloway had expected to testify before a panel of 13 senators in what he termed their "lions' den".
But he faced off against just two, Mr Coleman and Democratic counterpart Carl Levin.
It was Republican Mr Coleman who bore the brunt of the attack in one of the Senate's most flamboyant confrontations.
"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong," he told the chairman, whom he labelled a "neo-con, pro-war hawk".
Mr Coleman tried desperately to take it without emotion, but at one point could not resist breaking in to a smile.
'He's no lyncher'
In the face of Mr Galloway's refusal to accept anything the senators were claiming might be true, they tried to establish a link between a Jordanian businessman who they believe received oil allocations from Saddam Hussein, and Mr Galloway's children's charity.
Mr Galloway said the businessman had given money to the charity but he, Mr Galloway, had never known where it came from.
The senators believe that it came from Iraq, but they could come up with no proof and their questions ended.
Senator Levin later said he was "deeply troubled" that Mr Galloway had "ducked the question".
But it was Mr Galloway who looked most satisfied as he left the vast, wood-panelled committee room.
Outside in a corridor he told reporters he thought he had put the committee on the ropes, saying of Mr Coleman: "He's not much of a lyncher."
The senators, however, were playing down the confrontation.
'A knockout'
"This was not a wrestling match," Mr Coleman protested. "It wasn't a contest."
Asked his reaction to the "unusual" manner of the witness, he replied: "I was not offended by what he had to say, it was not relevant.
"The theatre, the dramatics - I was not looking at that. I had one goal and it was to make a record."
The pundits disagreed. One observer of Capitol Hill politics declared the result: "Galloway by a knockout - before round five."
Others cast the confrontation as Braveheart on Capitol Hill.
But though he left the building professing himself satisfied with his trip to Washington, only time will tell whether Mr Galloway has blown away the allegations he described as the "mother of all smokescreens".
Mr Coleman said he didn't think Mr Galloway had been a "credible witness". If it was found he had lied under oath, there would be "consequences", he said.
Source
Considering the news coverage of the hearing, I'm surprised the usual suspects (especially RF) haven't posted this already :blink:
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
I've just finished watching the full BBC video of the testimony. Unfortunately it only shows the view of George Galloway.
I would have liked to have seen more of the expressions on the faces of the two senators as he tore into them, as seen on the edited and commented excerpts.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
He does seem to be someone with nothing to hide and from what I know of him he will be dining on this for some time to come. By all accounts his charity connection with Fawaz Zureikat was on the record.
The democrats could do with someone like him in the filibuster debate
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
It was very entertaining. ;)
:shuriken:
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Galloway was great..when he got done blasting them at the hearing, I was cheering him. I wish some politicians here would have the balls already to open their mouths and speak the truth.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
I really don't like George Galloway, purely on a personal level, the man is smarmy. I have met him and he's the sort of chap that you count your fingers after having shaken his hand.
The fact that he "out-debated" a couple of minor US politicians on the basis of his self-righteous indignation impresses me not one jot. "You've got nothing on me" also strikes of "you can't prove it", rather than "I didn't do it".
The man is a consumate politician, clever and devious and I have no time for him.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthie
Galloway was great..when he got done blasting them at the hearing, I was cheering him. I wish some politicians here would have the balls already to open their mouths and speak the truth.
If you like him that much, you can keep him... :D
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I really don't like George Galloway, purely on a personal level, the man is smarmy. I have met him and he's the sort of chap that you count your fingers after having shaken his hand.
The fact that he "out-debated" a couple of minor US politicians on the basis of his self-righteous indignation impresses me not one jot. "You've got nothing on me" also strikes of "you can't prove it", rather than "I didn't do it".
The man is a consumate politician, clever and devious and I have no time for him.
Agreed. :dry:
If this man was such a good politicion why did he not stand in his own constituance. To me it was a well rehearsed speech. :ph34r:
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
"You've got nothing on me" also strikes of "you can't prove it", rather than "I didn't do it".
Which bit of "I have never bought or sold a barrel of oil" was unclear? Having categorically stated his innocence, "you've got nothing on me" takes on the meaning "someone has been making all this up". A subtle nuance of the English language you seem to have overlooked.
Quote:
The man is a consumate politician, clever and devious
I don't like the man myself, but I think this statement better fits your beloved fuhrer leader, Tony B'Liar. Not much chance of that though, given your "unthinking" support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enoughfakefiles
If this man was such a good politicion why did he not stand in his own constituance.
Other political parties do this all the time, why did Gordon Brown not choose the nearest constituency when his own was lost due to re-organisation? You can hardly say he went for the easy option, going up against one of Labour's prefered candidates in a "safe" seat.
Quote:
To me it was a well rehearsed speech.
No doubt you would have expected him to go totally unprepared. Get real.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
I was absolutely laughing my arse off when he said
"I have met Saddam Hussain twice, the same amount of times as Donald Rumsfeld, the only difference is - he went to sell him guns"
Lmao...priceless. Really priceless.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
i need to see this :shifty:
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Which bit of "I have never bought or sold a barrel of oil" was unclear?
Oh that's right, people always tell the truth when accused of misconduct.
We can now save a lot of time using the lynx system of trial.
Q - Did you do it.
A - No
Case dismissed, next.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
is there any evidence that he did?
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Other political parties do this all the time, why did Gordon Brown not choose the nearest constituency when his own was lost due to re-organisation? You can hardly say he went for the easy option, going up against one of Labour's prefered candidates in a "safe" seat.
Yes you can. He specifically chose the constituency with the highest concentration of Muslim voters and where the anti-war sentiment aimed at Labour was most prevalent.
He knew his best chance of election was by pandering to them by specifically attacking Labour as opposed to presenting any other issues. His campaign was a disgrace and the man's an arse.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Phlegm
Yes you can. He specifically chose the constituency with the highest concentration of Muslim voters and where the anti-war sentiment aimed at Labour was most prevalent.
He knew his best chance of election was by pandering to them by specifically attacking Labour as opposed to presenting any other issues. His campaign was a disgrace and the man's an arse.
:ohmy:
An honest man like george galloway would`nt do this would he.
Why has this story come about about him having a million barrels of oil. It had to come from somewhere.???
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Oh that's right, people always tell the truth when accused of misconduct.
We can now save a lot of time using the lynx system of trial.
Q - Did you do it.
A - No
Case dismissed, next.
You are right, JPaul...take bush, for instance..he hasn't told the truth about anything.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthie
You are right, JPaul...take bush, for instance..he hasn't told the truth about anything.
How do you know george manure has.????
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Galloway's remarks about Iraq were right on.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Oh that's right, people always tell the truth when accused of misconduct.
We can now save a lot of time using the lynx system of trial.
Q - Did you do it.
A - No
Case dismissed, next.
You said he hadn't refuted the charges, I was pointing out that he had.
The senate committe declared him guilty without any evidence. Is that your prefered method of trial?
In a complaint about the method of trial, pointing out the lack of any credible evidence is paramount, yet you imply it amounts to an admission of guilt.
Better go back to the voting booth, you don't have to think in there.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
did i start this voting joke? :01:
seriously though the only 'evidence' i've heard is about 2 years old where an iraqi government building was completely gutted by fire except for a letter mentioning galloway. i haven't followed the news over the last few days though :unsure:
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
I am not a big Galloway fan and it is probably fair to state that at the outset .... although I do think he is a talented orator and good communicator.
Nevertheless, something is simply not right. If, as suggested, he had the rights to sell 20 million barrels of oil that would amount to (at the old price of $30 a barrel) $600 million. The terms of Saddam's voucher deals would result in a net profit of a couple of million but the full transactions would need to take place in order to realise the profit. I defy any Joe Bloggs to launder $600 million through his building society account - indeed through any account. This is in the realms of the really serious racketeers and even the Colombian drug cartels find it hard to hide the traces of their activities. From a purely financial audit perspective I find it hard to believe that an individual citizen could successfully hide these quantities of money for 10 years or more as is claimed by the charge.
I also believe that if there was a scrap of genuine evidence against him it would have been used in our courts before the election. I do not think Mr Blair would have said "George is not so bad really, lets just forgive and forget".
So what is going on? I read somewhere that the French politician named is a rather stuffy old right winger who has never been to Iraq in his puff. The Russians accused I have never heard of, but apparently have been even less polite than Galloway regarding the accusations.
I may be wrong here but I do find it slightly suspicious that so many wild accusations have come to rest against the doors of those who either vocally opposed the war or who used the UN to try to block the war. There might be more merit in the committee looking closer to home at all the financial ties that link US companies to the rampant oil smuggling Saddam indulged in (a quantity substantially larger than the OFF transactions btw)
Some of the other accusations against Galloway also seem fabricated - particularly his supposed pro-Saddam stance. The truth is Galloway through the links with his Lebanese wife was (and almost certainly still is, even if his marriage is a bit rocky at the moment) pro Palestinian and was particularly vocal on that front.
I am sure as time passes the whole "Iraq, who got what" thing will unfold but, as ever, probably too late to bring the bulk of the miscreants to book.
I did think it was to Galloway's credit that he was prepared to go to the committee and say his piece.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Like I said Les, I don't like him on a personal basis, it has nothing to do with whether these allegations are true or not. I just don't like that sort of greasy, smarmy politician.
It is also widely reported that he said to Saddam Hussein "Sir, we salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability". Now he must have known (or at least suspected), at that time, what type of dictator Hussein was. He, as a UK politician was overtly supporting his regime and that on a world stage. I find that untenable.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
did i start this voting joke? :01:
Yup, good thing you did, it appears to have tickled Lynx's fancy. It makes me chortle every time he posts it.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Like I said Les, I don't like him on a personal basis, it has nothing to do with whether these allegations are true or not. I just don't like that sort of greasy, smarmy politician.
It is also widely reported that he said to Saddam Hussein "Sir, we salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability". Now he must have known (or at least suspected), at that time, what type of dictator Hussein was. He, as a UK politician was overtly supporting his regime and that on a world stage. I find that untenable.
Unfortnately he is not an isolated case on that front.
The quote is actually quite interesting and one that gets aired a lot (especially in the Telegraph :) ).
However, his primary activity as I recall was the children's cancer charity and the campaign to get some of the sanctions (particularly the medical supplies) lifted. As a rule greeting Saddam with "Hi! smeg breath" was not the most effective way of getting anything done in Iraq. The words Galloway chose to stroke Saddam's pride were, in my opinion at least, suitably eloquent whilst devoid of any real warmth or meaning. I do also have some sympathy with Galloway in the claim that many of those who now are anti-Saddam were some of Saddam's stongest supporters during the 80s when he was committing the worst of his attrocities.
That Saddam used Galloway for propaganda purposes in trying to get the sanctions lifted is without doubt the case. It is also true that Galloway is too smart to not know what Saddam was looking for from his visits to Iraq. However, children were dying and something did need to be done. That Gorgeous George enjoyed the limelight and controversy this work brought is also true - and is also why so many of us have an antipathy to him. He was right on a number of issues on Iraq but succeeded in being right in such a way that frequently irritated - not least those within his own party.
If, as seems at the moment to be the case, he is innocent as charged, I predict he will continue to irritate for some time to come.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Sorry, but my opinion is that "The Mariam Appeal", whilst in and of itself laudible was actually motivated by political machinations.
Little more than shroud waving, which I find repugnant.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
J2
As I said earlier, if there was any actual evidence both the Telegraph, which he successfully sued, and Tony Blair would leap upon it like manna from heaven.
I suspect Gorgeous George saw the Senate accusations simply as an opportunity to keep the Iraq issue on the front pages and, as you rightly point out, an opportunity to drink from the gilded media cup. I can only assume George has hollow legs as he is wont to drink from that cup frequently.
I see some of those less than keen on George over here are slightly peeved that the committee laid only glancing blows on him and gave him more media space than he could have ever hoped for. I also suspect the committee will be hoping the French politician does not follow Galloway's example. If for no other reason than the proceedings could take forever with translations of lengthy rants and diatribes. :)
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul/george galloway
indefatigability
i saw it on tv. i bet the translator's heart skipped a beat on this one :pinch:
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
J2, I'll string your sentence together for you, so that other's don't miss the nonsense in it.
Mr. Galloway did an admirable job of denying the "charges", however, actual refutation requires a denial... ...supported by evidence.
Tell me, how do you provide evidence that something didn't happen? Regarding evidence, you seem to be looking at the wrong set of feet on which to place that shoe. The burden of proof lies with those making charges.
Besides all of which, why did he feel compelled to appear before a committee he was not in any way beholden to?
Had he not done so, he would almost certainly have been accused of shying away from facing the committee. By appearing in front of the committee (or the two who bothered to turn up, if you want to talk about courtesy it seems distinctly lacking in your own "oily politicians") he exposed to the world the sham that is being perpetrated.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Tell me, how do you provide evidence that something didn't happen? Regarding evidence, you seem to be looking at the wrong set of feet on which to place that shoe. The burden of proof lies with those making charges.
Besides all of which, why did he feel compelled to appear before a committee he was not in any way beholden to?
Had he not done so, he would almost certainly have been accused of shying away from facing the committee. By appearing in front of the committee (or the two who bothered to turn up, if you want to talk about courtesy it seems distinctly lacking in your own "oily politicians") he exposed to the world the sham that is being perpetrated.
i imagine it's all very satisfying to pwn people spreading bullshit about you :happy:
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Once again, you make too much of too little.
I think, if Mr. Galloway were honestly imperturbed by the committee's "accusations" (that is to say, innocent), then he would not have feared any accusations of having shied from an appearance; instead, he did as Biggles joins me in pointing out: The man is a media hog, just as are all the members of the committee.
Perhaps you also missed my intent (by my use of the plural "polititians") to include more of them than just your Mr. Galloway; if I was less than clear on that, I apologize.
By and large, though, I see here and elsewhere a developing fandom for Galloway, whose new and loyal zealots favor him for no reason apart from his nicely executed speechifying at the expense of America and it's pursuits-it's just that simple.
you just answered your own question presuming there was one, i've only scanned this thread.
this showing off is just an ego boost and gains him popularity just for the fact that it's an underdog standing up to "the man"
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Apologies, J2, it seems we have found another subtle difference in our languages. The American definition of refute seems to carry with it the burden of evidence but there is no such obligation in the English definition, it simply means to deny the accuracy of a statement. Given that difference in definitions it appeared that you were requiring him to provide proof of his innocence, rather than questioning my use of the word.
A consequence is that the bit about
Quote:
Then all that is required to refute a charge is a categorical denial?
Does this occur as a courtesy, and only to oily politicians?
appears to apply only to Mr Galloway, since he is being required to deny the accusations against him and the members of the Senate committee are not (though perhaps they should be). I accept your assertion that it was meant to apply to all involved.
As to the subject of fandom, I've already stated that I don't like the man. But I like it even less when a group of bully boys start throwing around unsubstantiated accusations. I, like many others, applaud when someone stands up to the bullies. I suspect you've been known to do the same yourself.
You seem to think that's because it is at the expense of America, well I can only ask what it is that you think "America" is trying to achieve. I'm afraid it smells very much like another witch-hunt. As a nation you seem to be rather fond of those, yet they never seem to turn out well. I fear this one will be no exception.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Apologies, J2, it seems we have found another subtle difference in our languages. The American definition of refute seems to carry with it the burden of evidence but there is no such obligation in the English definition, it simply means to deny the accuracy of a statement.
Which dictionary are you using for this definition of refute.
I have to agree with j2 on this one, to refute requires proof.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
but why should he need proof if there's no evidence against him? how can he get it?
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Which dictionary are you using for this definition of refute.
I have to agree with j2 on this one, to refute requires proof.
Refute
1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.
or
1: overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof; "The speaker refuted his opponent's arguments" [syn: rebut]
2: prove to be false or incorrect [syn: rebut, controvert]
I didn't expect to have to teach you English, nor how to use a dictionary.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
dictionary.com is american isn't it?
anyway, why argue about what refute means and if he did it.
it's not like a burglary, he can't have an alibi in a case like this. the case can only be argued on evidence against him.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Refute
1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.
or
1: overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof; "The speaker refuted his opponent's arguments" [syn: rebut]
2: prove to be false or incorrect [syn: rebut, controvert]
I didn't expect to have to teach you English, nor how to use a dictionary.
What are you talking about it starts with "to prove", then goes on to "overthrow by argument or proof", proving my point and not yours.
or
"overthrow by argument, evidence or proof" then "prove to be false or incorrect", again showing you to be incorrect.
Have you taken leave of your senses. It is customary to refute something by providing evidence to support your case, not disprove it.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
it also says to deny accuracy or truth of...
but it doesn't matter 'cos i'm right
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
overthrow by argument
Do I even have to teach you how to read aswell.
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
i'd hardly call name calling an arguement in a legal sense :unsure:
-
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
with favouritism aside.
what laws have been broken and what evidence is there?
as far as i can see it is just a bunch of people picking on a person with different political ideals; accusing him of something impossible to disprove.