PDA

View Full Version : George Galloway in Washington


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Taliesin
05-19-2005, 06:43 AM
What do es everybody think about Mr Galloway's recent performance in front of the Senate.

I'd love to know

Hogan
05-19-2005, 07:46 AM
What do es everybody think about Mr Galloway's recent performance in front of the Senate.

I'd love to know

He has a cool accent.

deepsoup
05-19-2005, 01:13 PM
I often find him extremely annoying, he can be arrogant, smug and pompous, often all at the same time.

But his performance in front of the Senate committee was magnificent. I particularly enjoyed the dig at Donald Rumsfeld when he was dealing with the accusation that he'd met Saddam Hussein on "many occasions".

What does concern me about this whole story, and hasn't been tackled at all in any of the news coverage that I've seen is this:

It seems likely that the documents cited in the accusations against Galloway are forged, as were the ones used by the Daily Telegraph (to their cost), and I think its extremely unlikely that the allegations are true.

But there have also been references to statements from former high ranking members of Saddam's regime, obtained in "interview", which implicate Galloway. Its well documented that prisoners interrogated under torture tend to say whatever they think their interrogators want to hear. I'd like to hear what exactly were the circumstances of those "interviews".

Quite apart from the moral case against it (which is compelling enough), torture is a profoundly flawed method of intelligence gathering, because the victims will always have a tendency to confirm their interrogator's suspiscions, regardless of whether they are correct or not. Lets not even go into the damage that is done to the reputation of the US (and other members of the 'coalition'), or the propaganda victory that is given to our enemies when we seem to be morally no better than they are.

Sean
x

Neil Mick
05-19-2005, 09:42 PM
Give 'em hell, George! ;)

But, I have heard very little about the whole peformance from US sources. Most of it is from England, sadly. But with the state of today's media: what can you expect?

makuchg
05-20-2005, 05:27 AM
I often find him extremely annoying, he can be arrogant, smug and pompous, often all at the same time.

He should have felt right at home in the Senate than, since he was among his own kind :yuck:

Lorien Lowe
05-21-2005, 06:34 PM
I found it very refreshing. So often when someone (from either party) gets up and spews a long-winded load of total bull, they aren't challenged on it; the next person gets up and says something like, 'I respectfully disagree with my colleague from Tennessee..."

To hear someone call it like they see it was fabulous.

mj
05-22-2005, 07:09 PM
The official Senate position is now that...George Galloway did not appear and no testimony was given.

http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Detail&HearingID=232

(panel 2, near end of page)

Argue about that.

Neil Mick
05-22-2005, 07:50 PM
The official Senate position is now that...George Galloway did not appear and no testimony was given.

http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Detail&HearingID=232

(panel 2, near end of page)

Argue about that.

OK.

From what I can tell, only Panel 3 members didn't testify: George Galloway didn't submit a statement.

But, he certainly is in the archived webcast (listening to it, now).

dan guthrie
05-22-2005, 08:03 PM
I often find him extremely annoying, he can be arrogant, smug and pompous, often all at the same time.

But his performance in front of the Senate committee was magnificent. I particularly enjoyed the dig at Donald Rumsfeld when he was dealing with the accusation that he'd met Saddam Hussein on "many occasions".

What does concern me about this whole story, and hasn't been tackled at all in any of the news coverage that I've seen is this:

It seems likely that the documents cited in the accusations against Galloway are forged, as were the ones used by the Daily Telegraph (to their cost), and I think its extremely unlikely that the allegations are true.

But there have also been references to statements from former high ranking members of Saddam's regime, obtained in "interview", which implicate Galloway. Its well documented that prisoners interrogated under torture tend to say whatever they think their interrogators want to hear. I'd like to hear what exactly were the circumstances of those "interviews".

Quite apart from the moral case against it (which is compelling enough), torture is a profoundly flawed method of intelligence gathering, because the victims will always have a tendency to confirm their interrogator's suspicions, regardless of whether they are correct or not. Lets not even go into the damage that is done to the reputation of the US (and other members of the 'coalition'), or the propaganda victory that is given to our enemies when we seem to be morally no better than they are.

Sean
x

Galloway made Coleman look like he wandered off the set of a 50's sitcom. I'm surprised that every Senator, left and right, wasn't prepared for him at all.
On the other hand Galloway avoided answering some questions and deflected others. I have a hard time trusting anyone who was personally cozy with Hussein, and that includes Rumsfeld.

Galloway doesn't have to prove his innocence but I wouldn't be shocked, I tell you shocked, if he wasn't reprimanded for the appearance of bribery. I wouldn't be shocked if he was guilty, either.
On torture: I think the U.S. has ruined the possibility of a fine reputation. On moral grounds alone we should never have given the appearance of being vague on torture. On practical grounds: the information isn't reliable and no one's ever given me a good answer on what we do with Billy Smith, torturer, when he goes back to his dry cleaning business in Boise, Idaho.

Later edit: from the Wikipedia on Galloway emphasis mine

Galloway opposed the 1991 Gulf War and was critical of the effect the subsequent sanctions had on the people of Iraq. He visited Iraq several times and met senior government figures. His involvement earned him the nickname the "member for Baghdad Central". In 1994, Galloway faced some of his strongest criticism on his return from a Middle-Eastern visit during which he had met Saddam Hussein ostensibly "to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war". At the meeting he reported the support given to Saddam by the people of the Gaza Strip and also infamously ended this speech with the phrase "Sir: I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability ."[3] (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Galloway)

In the speech (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Galloway), Galloway clearly is addressing Saddam in support of his fight against U.N. sanctions, the policies of the U.S. and U.K. governments, and Israel ("hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [preceding words in Arabic which mean until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem]"). When later pressed to explain why he would make such a speech, he said that it was for the benefit of the Iraqi people collectively, and he has expressed his regret over the flattering remarks within the speech directed at the Iraqi dictator.

Taliesin
05-23-2005, 03:25 AM
So the Senate's view appears to be - we didn't like what he said - therefore it doesn't count. That's not just standards slipping - that's standards in freefall

Yann Golanski
05-24-2005, 03:35 AM
I found this rather interesting article on Mr galloway from http://windsofchange.net so I thought I'd add it to the discussion.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.asp?pg=1

mj
05-25-2005, 08:37 AM
Well Hitchens has no credibility as far as many people are concerned in the UK. Galloway nailed him when they met at the Senate, so while Hitchens claims to have some info on Galloway it was the same stuff refuted (totally) in his testimony.

Hitchen's Weekly 'Standard' piece "Saddam's favourite MP goes to Washington" where he tries to blacken Galloway's name basically contains all the same innuendo that the Senate Committee tried to throw at him. For fans only.

Taliesin
05-25-2005, 12:22 PM
Hitchen's has less credibility that Donald Rumsfelt(spl?) assuming that is actually possible

dan guthrie
10-30-2005, 10:37 AM
Reviving an old thread but it is news.
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=2167542005

mj
10-30-2005, 02:52 PM
The Senate were never going to let it lie when they had been bitch-slapped by Galloway.

Allowing Galloway a public trial in America will be highly enjoyable for the rest of us. :)

Blair got Galloway expelled from the Labour Party over here in the UK - the Muslims love Galloway as do the left, he took an important seat here at the last election against a pro-war Labour MP after he was expelled. Won some major libel actions too - against The Christian Science Monitor and UK papers too.

Those papers were saying the same thing as the Senate (and parts of the UK government). And when it went to trial it didn't go very far before Galloway won by a knockout.

It's all very well for US Senators (or UK Ministers) to make accusations behind the safe wall of privelege, when it gets to court it's a different matter.

dan guthrie
10-30-2005, 06:07 PM
From what I've heard this may not go any farther. The Senate has to refer it to the Justice Dept. - they may not - and then the Justice Dept. may not do anything. As far as I know the worst thing the Senate can accuse Galloway of is contempt of Congress but I could be wrong.

Hogan
10-31-2005, 04:31 PM
From what I've heard this may not go any farther. The Senate has to refer it to the Justice Dept. - they may not - and then the Justice Dept. may not do anything. As far as I know the worst thing the Senate can accuse Galloway of is contempt of Congress but I could be wrong.


Volker & Coleman are in agreement.

From Coleman:
"Sen. Coleman personally sent Galloway a letter requesting an interview, and offered to fly staff to London in order to conduct the interview. Mr. Galloway declined both offers, and instead, offered to respond to written questions. Galloway denied any involvement whatsoever in any Oil-for-Food transaction in his written responses.

Under the Federal False Statements Statute, it is unlawful for a witness to give false testimony before Congress on a material matter where that witness does so willfully and under oath, and the Federal Obstruction of Congressional Proceedings Statute prohibits a wide variety of obstructive conduct that influences, obstructs, or impedes a Congressional inquiry. I am reviewing the evidence with Senator Levin to determine the propriety of referring this matter to the Department of Justice, said Coleman.