Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
As best I can discern, he is thought to have had a chunk of the Oil-for-Food pelf as recompense for his direct or indirect actions in aid of Saddam's scheme of passing around oil "vouchers".
Without getting into the hairy details, it seems he is at least guilty of willful ignorance, which is to say he had "guilty knowledge".
Certainly, this is what the Senate committee would have you believe, it suits their purpose very well too. If you do indeed look at the "hairy details", you are more likely to find the allegations are lacking in substance. As pointed out by Biggles, our own government would have acted long before now if there was anything to act upon. Even if your assertion that he was guilty of willful ignorance were true, that in itself implies that he could not have "guilty knowledge", the two are by definition mutually exclusive.
Quote:
It would follow that the popular reasoning in the Senate is along the lines of, "Our knowledge of your knowledge would help us get to the bottom of this mess".
It may well be they have merely a desire to know what he knows, which would be beneficial in an investigatory sense, and no penalty to him.
Then surely all they had to do was ask. After all, he was in front of the committee and under oath, why did they not use that opportunity? It could equally be argued that they already knew what he knew, and didn't particularly want it revealed. It is no good bleating afterwards that you haven't got the information you wanted if you haven't asked the question.
Quote:
His obvious aversion to sharing his thoughts with a bunch of capitalist pigs renders any interchange too adversarial to bear fruit.
They didn't seem to mind things being too adversarial when they were making the accusations. The way they behaved does not seem to me to be a good way to achieve cooperation. It is a good excuse for not asking the question yet still trying to blame the other party. But upon examination the argument simply doesn't hold water.
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Do I even have to teach you how to read aswell.
Seriously, have you stopped taking some medication.
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
it means both, stop bickering :snooty:
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
it means both, stop bickering :snooty:
Feck it's contagious.
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Since all the "evidence" was supplied by the same chap that has been convicted of fraud in the past and supplied most of the US/UK "Intelligence" that led to a war, and was proven incorrect.
The same chap that was the US's preferred candidate for post "leader" in Iraq, and had to settle for Oil Minister or some such... i'd have to say that any of this "evidence" would have to be taken with a pinch of salt at the start, and not after looking at the facts... as was the case last time.
Mr Galloway is an arsehole... however; at least so far, he appears to have stood up for what he believes in, rather than what is good for his career. As such, he has much more of my respect than most of the hypocrits in power on both sides of the Atlantic.
There was an in depth look at his accounts after the Daily Telegraph story... and a holiday home worth £40,000 (and well within his means as an MP) is hardly an off shore account and mansion worth £millions as was claimed at the time.
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Feck it's contagious.
:unsure:
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Mr Galloway is an arsehole... however; at least so far, he appears to have stood up for what he believes in, rather than what is good for his career.
That seems to be the case, if you limit his career to being an MP and a member of the labour Party.
However I am sure there are, or will be, more strings to his bow.
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
and since no one else here thinks the Oil-for-Food scandal is a scandal, or even amounts to an other-than-ordinary event
Yes we do and yes it is.
However, as Biggles pointed out..
a/ The smuggling operation was/is a lot bigger and also.
b/ Even though we all KNOW that there were plenty of Americans involved, none that have a slightly Republican bent appear to be getting named, despite the fact that this evidence is a lot easier for your senate committee to actually obtain.
c/ The smuggling continues, and the Oil For Food has finished.. so the priority would appear to be the former.
d/ Its no more important than the missing $millions from the Iraq invasion/rebuilding, which doesnt appear to be getting investigated at all.
e/ REALLY tired with hypocracy, in all colours atm anyway :P
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
it means both
I think I said that. :blink:
Re: Galloway's Senate Showdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
I think I said that. :blink:
No you didn't, you told j2 that in the UK to refute did not require proof.
FFS do you even read your own posts.
"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".
