NationStates Jolt Archive

George Galloway has angrily dismissed allegations by US senators he profited from oil dealings with Saddam Hussein.

The UK MP denied ever being involved in oil trading and accused senators of being "cavalier" with justice.

"I am not now nor have I ever been an oil trader and neither has anyone on my behalf," Mr Galloway told senators.

"l have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one sold one and neither has anybody on my behalf."

'Mother of all smokescreens'

Mr Galloway went on the offensive as soon as he began to speak, saying he had met Saddam Hussein on two occasions - the same number of times as US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and maps - the better to target those guns. I met him to try to bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war," he said.

The accusations levelled against him was the "mother of all smokescreens", he said.

The biggest sanctions busters were American companies "with the connivance" of the US government.

Mr Galloway denied being an apologist for the former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

He said he had been a long-term opponent of Saddam, and had a much better record of opposition to the Iraqi leader than members of the American or British governments.

'Full of holes'

Earlier, Mark Greenblatt, who is acting as counsel to the Committee, told the hearing a senior official in Saddam Hussein's regime confirmed that Fawaz Zureikat, who was chairman of the charity, the Mariam Appeal, which was set up by Mr Galloway, facilitated the MPs oil allocations.

Mr Greenblatt said: "A senior regime official that was interviewed yesterday confirmed that Zureikat facilitated Galloway's oil transactions.

"He told me (and I quote) - 'It's my understanding that Zureikat is oil lifter for Galloway'."

Fawaz Zureikat has strongly denied making any arrangements linked to oil sales on behalf of Mr Galloway.

Earlier this month, Mr Galloway, who was expelled from the Labour Party for his views on Iraq, narrowly beat Labour's Oona King to win the Bethnal Green and Bow constituency, in East London, for the fledgling Respect party.

Russia allegation

The United Nations-backed oil for food scheme enabled Saddam Hussein to export oil to pay for essential humanitarian aid to help the Iraqi people cope with UN sanctions imposed in 1991.

The options to buy barrels of Iraqi oil were alleged to have been given as rewards for supporting Saddam Hussein.

The former Iraqi leader sold the vouchers at below market prices to favoured parties, who were able to sell them on at profit.

On Monday Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky denied the committee's accusations that he accepted millions of dollars in Iraqi oil allocations.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Mr Galloway's Respect party told a press conference the document used by the Senate hearing was a forgery.

The spokesman said: "The actual first document, we don't know where it is, they don't know where it is and all they have is a photocopy handed over by an unnamed source."

Typographical analysis showed Mr Galloway's name was in a different typeface, a lighter shade and at a different angle to the rest of the document, he said.

The spokesman suggested Mr Galloway's name had been stuck to the bottom of the list, and the document photocopied.

He also cited testimony from an Iraqi who claimed he forged lists of people who profited from the oil for food scheme.

Vehement denial

In December, Mr Galloway won £150,000 in libel damages from the Daily Telegraph over its separate claims he had received money from Saddam's regime.

The MP had denied ever seeking or receiving money from Saddam's government, which he said he had long opposed.

Last month the newspaper won permission to appeal against the ruling to pay the damages, plus £1.2m in costs.

The Senate committee's report also accused Mr Pasqua of receiving oil rights from Iraq, something he has vehemently denied.

The report claims both he and Mr Galloway were given potentially lucrative oil allocations as a reward for their support in calling for sanctions against the regime to be loosened.
source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4556113.stm)

I dont really like the guy, but good for him.

He is rather the knobhead but he appears to be right on this though.

Apparently there are Iraqi witnesses to the deal with Galloway, and paperwork was presented as well.

Galloway says that any paperwork is a forgery, but there is more and more of it now.

Having former Iraqi officials say that they had a deal with Mr. Galloway and his "charity" is particularly damning in my eyes.

Hope this get televised. Going to put on the six o'clock news now. Want to see the senator's faces.

Yet there are 'computer printouts' that have the references to Galloway in a different font or size (it's one of them, not sure which off hand) and out of alignment with the rest of the 'printout'.

Let me be clear here, I seriously dislike Galloway, but I think the US senate comitee should be more concerned with the fact that the US government turned a blindeye to the smuggling of iraqi oil, 53% of which was through American firms:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4554507.stm

(the 53% is from a front page guardian story about exactly the same thing derived from the same figures)

Yet there are 'computer printouts' that have the references to Galloway in a different font or size (it's one of them, not sure which off hand) and out of alignment with the rest of the 'printout'.

Let me be clear here, I seriously dislike Galloway, but I think the US senate comitee should be more concerned with the fact that the US government turned a blindeye to the smuggling of iraqi oil, 53% of which was through American firms:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4554507.stm

(the 53% is from a front page guardian story about exactly the same thing derived from the same figures)

You'll notice that Americans are already being prosecuted for it.

You'll notice that Americans are already being prosecuted for it.

Fair enough. I only heard about that bit of news this afternoon.

"Evidence" like this is fairly easy to forge to obscure who really got the money. Unless they can actually show the cash going into his charity and then out to him the evidence they produce is pretty irrelevant.
Galoway is loud and opinionated but I don't think he's stupid or dishoest on this scale.

Fair enough. I only heard about that bit of news this afternoon.

It's been news here in the US that US citizens and companies are being investigated and prosecuted for about two months now - even on Fox News.

Looking over the various web news sources, it would appear that the Senate committee has heard from more than one former senior Iraqi official about Galloway. I would be disinclined to believe his protestations of innocence at this point.

I hate Galloway and I hate his politics but you have to love it when a fellow Brit goes and kicks America's political establishment in the bollocks.

George Galloway - I salute his courage, his strength, and his indefatigability :D

I hate Galloway and I hate his politics but you have to love it when a fellow Brit goes and kicks America's political establishment in the bollocks.
Watched it on CSPAN. I didn't get the impression that he kicked America's politics in the bollocks.

I got the very strong impression that some very smug Senators had him by his balls, and that he protested too much, too little, and way too late.

If you listen to the whole hearing, there's apparently multiple former Iraqi officials who ratted Galloway out.

They're buttraping Galloway for the amusement of the American public - you can take the hearing any way you like, but that's the way it's playing here.

Watched it on CSPAN. I didn't get the impression that he kicked America's politics in the bollocks.

I got the very strong impression that some very smug Senators had him by his balls, and that he protested too much, too little, and way too late.

If you listen to the whole hearing, there's apparently multiple former Iraqi officials who ratted Galloway out.

They're buttraping Galloway for the amusement of the American public - you can take the hearing any way you like, but that's the way it's playing here.

Thanks but I'll trust the BBC over FoxNews

Thanks but I'll trust the BBC over FoxNews
I'm watching CSPAN. There's no commentary - just the straight unadulterated video with no comments. Quite unlike the BBC.

Quite unlike the BBC.

Actually they do this quite often on the BBC News 24 channel.

I'm watching CSPAN. There's no commentary - just the straight unadulterated video with no comments. Quite unlike the BBC.


I hope CSPAN will be a good enough source for our friends then.

Seriously, this is a sham of the highest order. Galloway is an arrogant populist who probably does the anti-war movement more harm than good, but he's clearly innocent of these charges. Time and again, he's been found innocent of such allegations. With these charges, the US have effectively invited one of their most rabid critics to slaughter them on live television. Idiocy.

Choice line, when defending his Mariam Appeal charity from charges of corruption: "This charity has already been very thoroughly investigated, at the order of Lord Goldsmith. You'll remember him - he's the only lawman in the world, outside these shores, who thought your Iraq war was legal."

EDIT: and the Beb have no love for Gorgeous George. On election night and the morning after, he spent his interview time slagging them off.

What was Galloway doing in America, being interrogated by the Senate of all things?!

What was Galloway doing in America, being interrogated by the Senate of all things?!
I think he thought he was "clearing his good name" but he played right into their hands.

I can only imagine the glee with which the Senators anticipated his presence. The Senators are only asking questions they hope will be replayed as sound bites showing how tough they are on the criminals who ran oil for food.

Mind you, I do think Galloway is quite guilty - from the testimony of the senior Iraqi officials who have evidently testified to the Senate (and not to any British investigators) that Galloway was up to his neck in it.

But this is a dog and pony show.

What was Galloway doing in America, being interrogated by the Senate of all things?!
This Senate committee essentially found him guilty in absentia of profiting from the oil-for-food programme. Galloway pointed out that he hadn't been allowed to defend himself, so they invited him over (probably not expecting him to come) and he gleefully took them up on the offer.

Nobody seems to like him at all :D but kudos to him all the same. i think the guys innocent. His major point (which is true) was that the Senate hearings were using documents as proof, even though their validity was pooed upon by the British Courts. Big screw up there!

My fav bit (paraphrased): Levin: so you're saying you'd circumvent the UN and the legality of international law to continue with your...'

Galloway interrupts: You mean the way you circumvented the UN and the international law by launching an illegal war on Iraq?

Priceless :D

- from the testimony of the senior Iraqi officials

Yes, but also some of those testimonys were from officals wallowing in Abu Grahib.... as was pointed out by Galloway. i'm sure their credibility is top notch. :rolleyes:

My fav bit (paraphrased): Levin: so you're saying you'd circumvent the UN and the legality of international law to continue with your...'

Galloway interrupts: You mean the way you circumvented the UN and the international law by launching an illegal war on Iraq?

Priceless :D
Gold! Where can I get a transcript, or better yet, video of this?

Actually they do this quite often on the BBC News 24 channel.This is true; it's what I was watching him on.

I'm yet to be persuaded by either side on the issue, but (despite the fact that I too don't like him) I do think it was wrong for the Senate not to issue Galloway with the accusatory documents prior to making the allegations so public.

Yes, but also some of those testimonys were from officals wallowing in Abu Grahib.... as was pointed out by Galloway. i'm sure their credibility is top notch. :rolleyes:
Didn't Galloway resign? If he's so innocent, why did he resign?

Didn't Galloway resign? If he's so innocent, why did he resign?Do you mean in relation to the Labour Party? If so, I believe he was actually expelled for his extreme anti-Iraq-war views, and his very public denounciation of Blair and friends in relation to same. Other politicians did similar things - viz Robin Cook, Claire Short - but I believe Galloway was particularly hardline in how he described those in favour of the war.

I think he thought he was "clearing his good name" but he played right into their hands.

I can only imagine the glee with which the Senators anticipated his presence. The Senators are only asking questions they hope will be replayed as sound bites showing how tough they are on the criminals who ran oil for food.

Mind you, I do think Galloway is quite guilty - from the testimony of the senior Iraqi officials who have evidently testified to the Senate (and not to any British investigators) that Galloway was up to his neck in it.

But this is a dog and pony show.
"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 difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and maps - the better to target those guns. I met him to try to bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war,"

I agree, he was well and truly 'pwned' there

and the documents have already been shown to be bullshit by the British courts in a libel case, which Galloway won.

It would not have been possible to force him out of the Labour Party had there been nothing to go on.

Apparently, none of the Iraqis who gave testimony to the Committee had ever spoken to anyone in Britain. They backed the documents.

Had they backed the documents in Britain, I wonder what the outcome would have been.

Gold! Where can I get a transcript, or better yet, video of this?
video (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/bb_rm_fs.stm?nbram=1&news=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1&nol_storyid=4556887)

Didn't Galloway resign? If he's so innocent, why did he resign?

No, he was pushed out of the Labour party for being such a vocal opponent of Blairs policy on Iraq.

He set up his own fledgling party 'Respect' and actually stole a VERY safe Labour seat from Labour in centra London in the recent election.

It would not have been possible to force him out of the Labour Party had there been nothing to go on.
He was kicked out for opposing the war and slagging off the party leadership, not for anything to do with oil for food that he may or may not have done

He was kicked out for opposing the war and slagging off the party leadership, not for anything to do with oil for food that he may or may not have done
Other members opposed the war and slagged off the Labour leadership.

I also believe that the whole Oil for Food scandal was real. It was real enough for the UN to admit it, and real enough to accumulate a list of names from Iraqi documents that the UN accepts as real, through the UN's own investigation.

There were a lot of people screwing the Iraqi people before the war - taking money and then turning around and blaming the US for any shortage of medicine and food.

Those people should be flayed alive in public.

Other members opposed the war and slagged off the Labour leadership.

yeah... and they went too. (Robin Cook, Clare Short and one or two others i think)

yeah... and they went too. (Robin Cook, Clare Short and one or two others i think)
And look, Labour won again!

I wonder why. If you think those people are so great, why didn't they become the political powers that be in the UK?

Other members opposed the war and slagged off the Labour leadership.

I also believe that the whole Oil for Food scandal was real. It was real enough for the UN to admit it, and real enough to accumulate a list of names from Iraqi documents that the UN accepts as real, through the UN's own investigation.

well its a pity, for you, that the British courts have found that Galloway did nothing improper in his libel trial against the Daily Telegraph. He was awarded £150,000 in damages (plus £1.2m in costs) following a claim in said newspaper that he received money from Hussein.

I imagine most people would feel that is enough to show he was innocent

And look, Labour won again!

I wonder why. If you think those people are so great, why didn't they become the political powers that be in the UK?

em... its the First Past the Post voting system. Labour only won 33% of the actual vote. Nothing to do with anyone being 'great'.

if it was PR now theres a different story.. Hello Lib Dems!!

well its a pity, for you, that the British courts have found that Galloway did nothing improper in his libel trial against the Daily Telegraph. He was awarded £150,000 in damages (plus £1.2m in costs) following a claim in said newspaper that he received money from Hussein.

I imagine most people would feel that is enough to show he was innocent

Based on the evidence they presented at that hearing.

Evidently, there's a lot more now. And plenty against the rest at the UN, which the UN accepts.

And look, Labour won again!

I wonder why. If you think those people are so great, why didn't they become the political powers that be in the UK?
Galloway took one of the safest Labour seats off them

Labours majority was reduced by about 100. it was only the ineffectiveness of the tories that stopped them winning the election

Other members opposed the war and slagged off the Labour leadership.Yes, but as I said, their criticism was not to the degree of Galloway's. Cook and Short (who resigned as Ministers) made their cases in a way that was their scathing contempt was underlying in their words, rather than being wholly blatant. Galloway came out and said Blair et al were liars and so on. He made no attempt to put his views in a manner that would have made them clear, but not bordered on slander.*

*Note - I am not saying it was slander! Nor am I saying I disagree with Galloway's views on the war, nor am I saying I believe he is innocent or guilty in relation to the oil-buying thing.

Galloway took one of the safest Labour seats off them

Labours majority was reduced by about 100. it was only the ineffectiveness of the tories that stopped them winning the election

And yet Tony is still in power. Go figure.

And yet Tony is still in power. Go figure.
dude, seriously stop!
you're trying bless ya, but your facts are all muddled up!

And yet Tony is still in power. Go figure.Well, as others have said, lack of PR is one reason why and yet another is the fact that the Tories have yet to completely recover from their follies of the recent past. The Lib Dems, while very popular (especially amongst younger voters) have yet to completely establish themselves as a potential government, though judging by their continuing increase in the popular and FPTP vote, they soon will.

For most people voting Labour (certainly the majority that I heard comment, though I accept this is not necessarily a representative microcosm of the electorate), they were the 'least bad' of the three parties, or the 'most likely to get into power, so why not vote for them' party.

And yet Tony is still in power. Go figure.
i like how you manage not to show any ignorance of British politics. good work.

Weird- 3 Irish/Nothern Irish educating a North American on English politics. Go figure! :p

i like how you manage not to show any ignorance of British politics. good work.
As far as I can tell, Tony is still the PM. One would think that Galloway would be the PM, based on some of the comments on this forum, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

It would not have been possible to force him out of the Labour Party had there been nothing to go on.
No, his departure from the Labour Party was nothing to do with these allegations.

Labour are in power because many people feared the Tory (also pro-war) alternative. It was all about the lesser of two evils in a mere handful of marginal seats. We don't really have a democracy.

Based on the evidence they presented at that hearing.

Evidently, there's a lot more now.
"Senator, the Daily Telegraph's documents date identically with the documents you have presented in your report here"

17 minutes, 10 seconds into the video on the BBC website

As far as I can tell, Tony is still the PM. One would think that Galloway would be the PM, based on some of the comments on this forum, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
Tony is PM because Labour are in power. We don't vote for the leader here, we vote for the party.

As far as I can tell, Tony is still the PM. One would think that Galloway would be the PM, based on some of the comments on this forum, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

*sigh* No one here has really expressed any fondness for Galloway (check back over if you don't believe me), its just some feel he's being picked on both in Britain and in the US for being vehemently anti-Iraq War.

Seriously, you making yourself seem dumber by the minute by continuing to comment on British politics even though by your posts you know sweet f all about them. Yeah, Blairs PM for NOW, in less then 6 months he'll be gone.

"Senator, the Daily Telegraph's documents date identically with the documents you have presented in your report here"

17 minutes, 10 seconds into the video on the BBC website

You'll ignore the testimony of several former senior Iraqi officials who all testified previously before the committee, and implicated Mr. Galloway.

As far as I can tell, Tony is still the PM. One would think that Galloway would be the PM, based on some of the comments on this forum, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
Britain has a parliamentary system. People dont vote for a leader, they vote for their local candidates, and then the Queen 'chooses' the Prime Minister (by convention, the leader of the largest party in the Commons)

Tony Blair remaining as PM has absolutely nothing to do with anything you think it has to do with.

Britain has a parliamentary system. People dont vote for a leader, they vote for their local candidates, and then the Queen 'chooses' the Prime Minister (by convention, the leader of the largest party in the Commons)

Tony Blair remaining as PM has absolutely nothing to do with anything you think it has to do with.

It means he still has a great deal of political power. Political power that, for example, Mr. Galloway does not have.

It means that his party has political power. And it means that within his party, he has political power since he is that party's leader.

It means more than you think it means. You wish to demean it because you wish he was not the PM.

You'll ignore the testimony of several former senior Iraqi officials who all testified previously before the committee, and implicated Mr. Galloway.
senior officials interred in various US jails, including Guantanemo. yes, we can trust them.

nobody outside of the US would believe anything that someone interred at Guantanemo would say

I don't really like George Galloway and disagree with him on many issues (such as abortion and gay marriage which he opposes) but the allegations against him are absolutely absurd and are an attempt to divert attention away from the real criminals who are the US and UK governments. He was also brilliant today in the Senate and it is good to see someone confronting the Americans with the truth of their appalling actions which have led to the deaths of over 100,000 innocent Iraqis all for the profit of US corporations.

Weird- 3 Irish/Nothern Irish educating a North American on English politics. Go figure! :pLOL! Fair point.

And I certainly don't like George Galloway, and would be horrified if he were PM. But since leaving Labour, and only having a small party, it was never likely to happen. The others seem to have adequately explained that we don't vote for leaders here, though.

It means he still has a great deal of political power. Political power that, for example, Mr. Galloway does not have.

It means that his party has political power. And it means that within his party, he has political power since he is that party's leader.

It means more than you think it means. You wish to demean it because you wish he was not the PM.
people like his party, not him. as one Labour MP (whos name i forget) said after the election, "when i was out on the streets canvassing, i was not fighting the Lib Dems, I was fighting Tony Blair."

Blair is one of the most unpopular people in the UK, its just that the tories are unelectable. That is why he is still Prime Minister, not because people like him.

really, go learn about British politics before you make yourself look like an even bigger fool.

people like his party, not him. as one Labour MP (whos name i forget) said after the election, "when i was out on the streets canvassing, i was not fighting the Lib Dems, I was fighting Tony Blair."

Blair is one of the most unpopular people in the UK, its just that the tories are unelectable. That is why he is still Prime Minister, not because people like him.

really, go learn about British politics before you make yourself look like an even bigger fool.

If he's so unpopular, why does the Labour Party consider him their leader?

If he's so unpopular, why does the Labour Party consider him their leader?They are not intending to for much longer.

If he's so unpopular, why does the Labour Party consider him their leader?
because hes stepping down soon anyway, so theres no point in kicking him out

They are not intending to for much longer.
I guess he's not as unpopular as Chamberlain was.

Besides, I've heard a lot of ignorant talk from UK residents on the US political scene, including phone calls during our last election (an act which I refrained from returning in kind). So I'm commenting on UK politicians, especially those that come over here.

And I didn't hear Galloway refute the testimony of the Iraqis who implicated him.

WL, I think it needs to be emphasised that we simply do things differently over here. Not necessarily better, mind. People voted for Labour in the knowledge that Gordon Brown would take over by the next election. Personally, I'd like to have seen him booted, but I never get my way in politics!

I guess he's not as unpopular as Chamberlain was.
Chamberlain resigned, he wasnt kicked out.

Chamberlain resigned, he wasnt kicked out.
People only resign when they realize they'll be kicked out if they don't. It's called "saving face", at least on this side of the pond.

People only resign when they realize they'll be kicked out if they don't. It's called "saving face", at least on this side of the pond.
Wow, Bush should be gone soon then!! :p

(sorry, couldn't resist the jibe)

I guess he's not as unpopular as Chamberlain was.

Besides, I've heard a lot of ignorant talk from UK residents on the US political scene, including phone calls during our last election (an act which I refrained from returning in kind). So I'm commenting on UK politicians, especially those that come over here.

And I didn't hear Galloway refute the testimony of the Iraqis who implicated him.
Essentially - and this is understandable given how many times he's refuted such charges in the past - he's calling the testimonies bollocks.

Wow, Bush should be gone soon then!! :p

(sorry, couldn't resist the jibe)

That is funny, but there's little chance that Bush could be "kicked out". Unless he has an intern moment, or something similarly inane, and maybe not even then.

We don't have something similar to votes of no confidence over here - no way to force a change in the government ahead of its scheduled time.

I guess he's not as unpopular as Chamberlain was.

Besides, I've heard a lot of ignorant talk from UK residents on the US political scene, including phone calls during our last election (an act which I refrained from returning in kind). So I'm commenting on UK politicians, especially those that come over here.

And I didn't hear Galloway refute the testimony of the Iraqis who implicated him.He was popular when he first became PM, with both his party and the public. However, he's become so authoritarian over the course of his premership that even some former Blair-loyalists are turning against him. There have been numerous calls for him to step down since his party's re-election at the beginning of this month.

I am sorry if you were abused in relation to the most recent US election, but while most of us may have strong views on the subject, the majority don't go around making phone calls telling you how you should and should not vote. Furthermore, not all of us are completely ignorant of the American political system - I don't pretend to be an expert myself, but there are some who are informed.

Finally, I am not sticking up for Galloway. As I've previously said, I am undecided about this issue; my only large point, as previously noted, was the Senate's failure to supply Galloway with the documents before their public outing.

Essentially - and this is understandable given how many times he's refuted such charges in the past - he's calling the testimonies bollocks.

That's what anyone would say, guilty or innocent. I think he needs a better refutation.

There's a really long pattern of forgery associated with the US and UK governments; they're really bad at it: there's been loads of examples in the past few years, from claims about WMD to Iraq in north Africa which the UK gvmt insisted were real even after they were proven to be forgeries, right down to exactly this sort of Galloway thing happening before over similar type stuff.....

I think anyone found to have forged a document with a view to bringing someone else into disripute ought to be investigated and tried for treason; after all they're misleading an entire state against its own interests.

That is funny, but there's little chance that Bush could be "kicked out". Unless he has an intern moment, or something similarly inane, and maybe not even then.

We don't have something similar to votes of no confidence over here - no way to force a change in the government ahead of its scheduled time.

oh yeah, i actually remember studying that. crap... meh, maybe he'll choke on another pretzle!

Wait, that means Bush could suddenly go crazy, wake up one morning and decide to nuke France and theres nothing the system can do? correct me if i'm wrong... please!

That's what anyone would say, guilty or innocent. I think he needs a better refutation.
i would say the ruling of the English High Court is good enough evidence of his innocence.

He was popular when he first became PM, with both his party and the public. However, he's become so authoritarian over the course of his premership that even some former Blair-loyalists are turning against him. There have been numerous calls for him to step down since his party's re-election at the beginning of this month.

Bush has become quite the authoritarian, but he did most of it through his appointees, so they took the heat from it (example: Ashcroft was the bad man who gets blamed for the Patriot Act). And he plays that Texas simpleton image too well - so no one believes he's really smart enough to pull the wool over our eyes.

And then he gets rid of Ashcroft, and the sun is supposed to be shining again.

I tend to put Tony in the same basket as Clinton - not a slave to his party's ostensible beliefs - willing to say or do anything to get elected by straddling the center - willing to attack other countries for some damn reason (Clinton did that seven times) - and very authoritarian within his own party (Clinton essentially eviscerated the leadership of the Democratic Party, leaving them with no heir to the Clinton throne).

I, for the life of me, was quite surprised that Tony was so cozy with Bush - right after being so cozy with Clinton.

I am confusd as to why exactly Whispering legs thinks that just because some politicians are anti-war, they should magically become a government. The British electorate can actually vote over more than one issue and the Iraq war, although making Mr. Blair extremely unpopular with many people, didn't necessarily come very highly on a list of what is voted for. Even if it was people can only vote for their local candidate so the LibDems would have been elected seeing as they were the only main party to consistently oppose the war. George Galloway won a seat, and Short and Cook kept theirs but that doesn't mean that Blair can be ousted.

I tend to put Tony in the same basket as Clinton - not a slave to his party's ostensible beliefs - willing to say or do anything to get elected by straddling the center - willing to attack other countries for some damn reason (Clinton did that seven times) - and very authoritarian within his own party (Clinton essentially eviscerated the leadership of the Democratic Party, leaving them with no heir to the Clinton throne).

I, for the life of me, was quite surprised that Tony was so cozy with Bush - right after being so cozy with Clinton.I quite agree with you on these points.

I tend to put Tony in the same basket as Clinton - not a slave to his party's ostensible beliefs - willing to say or do anything to get elected by straddling the center - willing to attack other countries for some damn reason (Clinton did that seven times) - and very authoritarian within his own party (Clinton essentially eviscerated the leadership of the Democratic Party, leaving them with no heir to the Clinton throne).

I, for the life of me, was quite surprised that Tony was so cozy with Bush - right after being so cozy with Clinton.
Here we agree. I can explain Blair's coziness with Bush though, I think. For starters, Blair really believes in 'the special relationship'. Engagement is the key to keeping the US onside on the issues that matter to Blair. Secondly, I get the impression that they've genuinely forged a friendship.

As far as I can tell, Tony is still the PM. One would think that Galloway would be the PM, based on some of the comments on this forum, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
Do you think it's realistic for Respect to win over 324 seats when they were only founded in 2003? Did they even run 324 candidates? The UK general election is not like the US Presidential election. The leader of the party that wins the most seats becomes PM.

If he's so unpopular, why does the Labour Party consider him their leader?
He is unpopular with the people. The UK people do not vote on who the leader of the Labour party is.

I, for the life of me, was quite surprised that Tony was so cozy with Bush - right after being so cozy with Clinton.
Why? Despite what most partisans on the Rep/Dem divide think, Bush and Clinton were similar enough on foerign policy.

The problem with Galloway's chirade is that he kept sidestepping the questions.
Instead of answering the questions he would go into a chirade about how evil Americans were and how all evil in the world was America's fault.

You have to respect that he is very good at skirting the issue.

Well of course he denied the charges. His denial of the charges does nothing to either prove his guilt or innocence. I have seen some of the documentation and evidence supporting the charges against him, I have seen no evidence on his side. I don't know his position yet.
But what the hell else do people think he would do other than deny the charges. Do people honestly think he would come over for a hearing before the US congress and suddenly say, "You know what, I did all of what you say. I am guilty and evil."

Also, I have to ask, what the hell is he doing coming before a US congressional hearing? As much as I dislike him and do right now belief his guilt, isn't that a matter for the UK government? Since when has the US congress gained this internation power? I think they can look at the UN stuff, the UN is occupying US land (and wasting good real estate!!!) but a member of the British Parliament? eh?

Well of course he denied the charges. His denial of the charges does nothing to either prove his guilt or innocence. I have seen some of the documentation and evidence supporting the charges against him, I have seen no evidence on his side. I don't know his position yet.
But what the hell else do people think he would do other than deny the charges. Do people honestly think he would come over for a hearing before the US congress and suddenly say, "You know what, I did all of what you say. I am guilty and evil."

Also, I have to ask, what the hell is he doing coming before a US congressional hearing? As much as I dislike him and do right now belief his guilt, isn't that a matter for the UK government? Since when has the US congress gained this internation power? I think they can look at the UN stuff, the UN is occupying US land (and wasting good real estate!!!) but a member of the British Parliament? eh?

I think he volunteered to come over. The US Congress can't subpoena members of foreign governments. The Senate must have asked him to come and he agreed to come on his own.

I think he volunteered to come over. The US Congress can't subpoena members of foreign governments. The Senate must have asked him to come and he agreed to come on his own.
Correct, though he's not a member of the government.

I think he volunteered to come over. The US Congress can't subpoena members of foreign governments. The Senate must have asked him to come and he agreed to come on his own.

So basically this hearings thingy has no prosecutional powers. They are just sitting and chatting about this stuff and will publish a report and of course write a few dozen books on the subject and in the end not really do anything.
Hey Mr. Galloway, come on over here, sit in front of us, call us liars and we will return the favor. We all will get more time on tv! It is win/win!
politicians, meh.

Correct, though he's not a member of the government.
then why do they keep calling an MP? I thought MP was member of Parliament.

So basically this hearings thingy has no prosecutional powers. They are just sitting and chatting about this stuff and will publish a report and of course write a few dozen books on the subject and in the end not really do anything.
Hey Mr. Galloway, come on over here, sit in front of us, call us liars and we will return the favor. We all will get more time on tv! It is win/win!
politicians, meh.
Precisely. The Senators get to write their books and Mr. Galloway gets to write his. And both sides profit.

then why do they keep calling an MP? I thought MP was member of Parliament.
yes, but not all Members of Parliament are members of the government.

Precisely. The Senators get to write their books and Mr. Galloway gets to write his. And both sides profit.

Hmm, I'd better wait and buy the books so I can find out the "real story"!!

I think he volunteered to come over. The US Congress can't subpoena members of foreign governments. The Senate must have asked him to come and he agreed to come on his own.

Not quite. According to Galloway the senate hasn't contacted him once, and the only time he actually found out any of this was when everyone found out. He was fairly angry about the fact that he was not once contacted about the fact they were investigating him.

yes, but not all Members of Parliament are members of the government.
that don't make any sense. How can member of the legislature not be a member of the government?

Not quite. According to Galloway the senate hasn't contacted him once, and the only time he actually found out any of this was when everyone found out. He was fairly angry about the fact that he was not once contacted about the fact they were investigating him.
And your source for this is?
So you are saying he is trying to defend his honor?

that don't make any sense. How can member of the legislature not be a member of the government?

There's a difference. Galloway does not create policy. Galloway does not represent foreign policy. Galloway listens to the government and votes yes or no depending on whether he agrees on their policy. He is a member of government, but not the party in power, being a member of the RESPECT coalition, one of the minor parties * I believe he is the only MP*.
So he doesn't govern, he opposes. And represents his constituents, of course.

that don't make any sense. How can member of the legislature not be a member of the government?
because hes not a member of the party thats in government.

And your source for this is?
So you are saying he is trying to defend his honor?

I don't have a source, I should have said that. Just that on the television broadcast I was listening to, he was complaining quite loudly about having not been contacted once. I have yet to see a senate representative refute this at all.

And I am not sure. I am not a Galloway supporter, I just try to observe political proceedings. It's a fascination of mine. Perhaps he feels he is trying to defend his honour. perhaps he's just trying to improve his profile. I don't know.

I don't have a source, I should have said that. Just that on the television broadcast I was listening to, he was complaining quite loudly about having not been contacted once. I have yet to see a senate representative refute this at all.

And I am not sure. I am not a Galloway supporter, I just try to observe political proceedings. It's a fascination of mine. Perhaps he feels he is trying to defend his honour. perhaps he's just trying to improve his profile. I don't know.
He's putting on a pretty good act of it.

Hope this get televised. Going to put on the six o'clock news now. Want to see the senator's faces.
YEAH...me too I wanna see thier faces...

anyone got a link..

like when Jon Stewart kicked CNN asses :D

YEAH...me too I wanna see thier faces...

anyone got a link..

like when Jon Stewart kicked CNN asses :D

It was already on CSPAN. Watched the whole thing.

If you listen carefully, you'll notice that he never answers a question directly.

If you listen carefully, you'll notice that he never answers a question directly.

He may be out to tear the US government a new hole but he's still a politician...that's what they do.

It was already on CSPAN. Watched the whole thing.

If you listen carefully, you'll notice that he never answers a question directly.
Wow... your right.... :eek:

well, shizzle.. who'da thunk that politicians dodge questions...

'eh, President Bush, have any WMDs been found in Iraq yet...President Bush? President.. hey, wheres he going?'

The problem with Galloway's chirade is that he kept sidestepping the questions.
Instead of answering the questions he would go into a chirade about how evil Americans were and how all evil in the world was America's fault.

You have to respect that he is very good at skirting the issue.


Thats precisely why he is such a hero to his supporters in here-not because he defends himself, but because he has balls and a lot of venom towards the US and President Bush. They love that he verbally attacks them for the camera.
He spent plenty of time with Tariq Aziz back in the 90s-he's really cozy with them. Although Aziz is now saying the leukemia charity was founded to conceal oil payments. Maybe he is a scorned lover. I dont trust any of the scumbags involved.