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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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:

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.

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:

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"