Galloway against America

[Stevieboy]

Galloway against America. I used to think Galloway was a tit but he did manage to show America thier ironies by them accusing him of dealings with Iraq.


It was a matter of David against goliath and it took an ex boxing Scot to put the bullies of the world in thier place.

C'mon the Scots.

[Kempy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

check out the 2nd headline and then the picture above it

[La Jouissance]

I thought he was brilliant today at that trial - not his usual sometimes annpying self. I recommend watching the whole thing on BBC!

[amac]

I'm past half way watching it now and i'm quite impressed. There are a lot of things I don't like about him, but you've got to love how he's handling himself here.

[Eliot Wilson]

No, Galloway is a tit. He's a self-important, pompous, confrontational little man with an extraordinary ability to rethink the past in his own mind. His infamous praise of Saddam Hussein? "I was addressing the Iraqi people, not Saddam Hussein." Really, George? Why did you preface the remarks with "Sir", then? I also find him cold and unfriendly, but that's neither here nor there.

[hr]

Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."

[theDude]

I'm not knowledgable on the dude's past dealings with Iraq (or lack of), but I wasn't very convinced by the way he handled himself infront of the Senate. True he did bring up some excellent points, shedding light on America's errors and hypocricies, but it seemed his strategy was more to denouce the US rather than protect himself. He insulted Rumsfeld a lot more successfully than he advocated his own innocence. Not to mention poor 'acting' ability: I would argue his attempt present himself with a touch of restrained anger and surprise at his accusation seemed a bit forced. oh well, let's see what happens

[Eliot Wilson]

He also displayed a deep aversion to answering the questions he was asked; perhaps he was answering the questions he was hearing, but that isn't the same thing. And, as theDude said, his strategy did largely consist of saying "Yeah? Well, you suck" to the senators.

[hr]

Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."

[Gealle]

Perhaps the reason Galloway wasn't answering in defence of himself at certain times is because he has NOTHING to defend himself against.

If he's guilty, provide the evidence. Otherwise, keep going George! Show these little right wing bastards what militant socialists can do on a good day!

[exnihilo]

A fair point. The burden of proof is on the accusers - and so far they've all failed to do anything but smear him, and to his great financial gain in the courts.

Besides which, it's about time someone said to some senators "Yeah? Well, you suck", because if you want a collection of pugnacious, smug, complacent men you needn't look much further than those who fill seats on the Capitol.

[Eliot Wilson]

Though one wonders if George Galloway is the right man to challenge pugnacity, smugness and complacency. Know your enemy, I suppose.

[hr]

Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."

[David Bean]

Personally, I think it's all a big misunderstanding. It seems both sides are determined to push their own conspiracy theory; the US Senate wants to think Galloway is corrupt because he opposes US policy, and Galloway wants to think he's been framed so he can go down as some sort of martyr. Neither side, sadly, seems to want to admit the most likely explanation: that whoever wrote the Iraqi documents linking him to corruption (I can't remember the details of the case) was most likely doing so in order to use Galloway as a kind of ghost agent, towards whom the agent could claim payments, which he would then cream off or use to create a slush fund, were being directed.

I don't know about the US Senate - I'm sure some of them are perfectly decent chaps, and they seemed reasonable enough in their conduct during the hearing - but Galloway's testimony did strike me as such blatant soapboxery that at one stage it was only his accent that reminded me I wasn't listening to the trial of Slobodan Milosevic.

[exnihilo]

A very unfair comparison.

I've just watched the hearing and it is clear that the Committee really has nothing on him other than that one of his donors might have made some money from oil. And, as he points out, he got money from Middle Eastern rulers whose human rights record we all know to be appalling, but who by being friends with the USA are seemingly exempt from criticism.

He makes a very solid case, I'm no great fan of his, but this is obviously a witch hunt and they clearly did not expect such a robust defence from him when they added his name to their list. They clearly didn't expect any defence, and in that regard they've misjudged their man. Their report makes unbacked-up assertions, and they've failed to demonstrate any wrong-doing.

And for Senator Coleman to come out afterwards and have nothing to say other than if it would be bad for Galloway if it turned out he'd lied to the committee demonstrates they have nothing on him and that the senator is a very churlish and idiotic figure who was completely out of his league and didn't realise what he was taking on.

[Gealle]

Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.

Mark Twain


Says it all about the US political system really... Nothing's changed

[exnihilo]

Indeed and Coleman looked a prize chump.

Just a quick response to what Eliot said above - I too have met George, he's spoken twice at debates in St Andrews and I'll grant he was a little distant at the second occasion, but on the first where he dined with the Society I found him to be unfailingly pleasant and excellent company.

That he volounteered to appear before the committe rather suggests he has nothing to hide or that he knows they have nothing on him. A cynic would suggest that he saw this as an opportunity to take his crusade against the war to the world and in that respect he's succeeded admirably. Rather a spectacular own-goal for the US government and a tremendous boost to George.

[Gealle]

I'm really rather surprised (well, no, I'm not - they're all in the pockets of the big parties) that the newspapers couldn't come up with this nice little headline

Full-Time Score

George (Galloway) - 1.6million (on aggregate)

George (Dubya) - 1 set of senatorial red faces

[novium]

says it about all politics.

Quoting gealle from 07:41, 18th May 2005
Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.

Mark Twain


Says it all about the US political system really... Nothing's changed

[hr]

Wipe your hand across your mouth, and laugh;
The worlds revolve like ancient women
Gathering fuel in vacant lots.

[Humphrey]

Interestingly enough, Detroit actually gave Saddam Hussein the keys to the city back in the 80s.

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[Paranoid]

Bottom line is the guy is speaking up for all of us who cant believe how two-faced America has been in the past...regardless of whether Galloway is being so himself...


Anyone feel that its extremely ridiculous that the US is having a go at Galloway for accepting oil tokens from Iraq in return for speaking out in support of reduced UN restrictions, when the US itself went ahead and neglected the same UN's decision not to go to war with Iraq? I mean who are the US to go and point the fingers at others...

Best comment of the day from Galloway...highlighting how he's met Saddam twice in the past, the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld...and he met him the first time to sign a weapons deal!!!

[hr]

..I've got this pain down all the diodes on my left side...

[novium]

<>

Oh please. We could start digging up Great Britain's less than stellar history, but it wouldn't achieve anything. And yeah, ok, everything went down the tubes during the cold war. so what?

Quoting Paranoid from 12:42, 18th May 2005
Bottom line is the guy is speaking up for all of us who cant believe how two-faced America has been in the past...regardless of whether Galloway is being so himself...


Anyone feel that its extremely ridiculous that the US is having a go at Galloway for accepting oil tokens from Iraq in return for speaking out in support of reduced UN restrictions, when the US itself went ahead and neglected the same UN's decision not to go to war with Iraq? I mean who are the US to go and point the fingers at others...

Best comment of the day from Galloway...highlighting how he's met Saddam twice in the past, the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld...and he met him the first time to sign a weapons deal!!!

[hr]

..I've got this pain down all the diodes on my left side...

[hr]

Wipe your hand across your mouth, and laugh;
The worlds revolve like ancient women
Gathering fuel in vacant lots.

[Humphrey]

Yet again this ‘100,000’ civilian deaths figure raises its ugly head again. This came from ‘The Lancet’, which published the results of its Iraq survey just before the U.S presidential election. The trouble with it is that its absolute dribble, and yet because its trumpeted by academics and the anti-war movement, its somehow been accepted as the orthodoxy. The Iraq body count (which is vastly more credible) estimates that between 21,705 and 24,628 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Its still terrible, but its not 100,000. The figures for deaths resulting from the U.N ‘Oil for Palaces programme were similarly inflated, Saddam claimed a million and a half, the U.N claimed 500,000 and one million became the orthodoxy. Medical journals now see the figure as 300,000 preventable deaths.

Coalition casualties currently stand at 1804 dead and 6235 wounded. April 2004 was the bloodiest month with 140 U.S deaths in combat operations. In historical context, the U.S casualty rate in Vietnam was 600 a month, in Korea it was 900 a month, World War II was 9,200 a month and World War I was 6,100 a month. The amount of deaths of the U.S military during peacetime is about a thousand a year. To put it in another context, 40,000 people a year die of civilian gun related incidents in the U.S every year.


[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/