George Galloway 1: US Senate 0

[That Strange Girl]

I just got back from a trip to the UK. While I was there, British MP George Galloway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway) went to the Washington to answer questions of the senate commission on the Oil for Food program. A US senate report published in May 2005 report stated that he had received allocations worth 20 million barrels of oil, and that his leukemia charity The Miriam Appeal, was used to conceal payments. Galloway was greatly indignant (and justifiably so) that his name had been published in a list of the guilty without anybody even contacting him first to let him know or to give him a chance to answer the accusations. So, he flew to Washington to make his opinion on the matter clear.


"I know that standards have slipped in Washington in recent years, but for a lawyer, you're remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice," he told Norm Coleman, the Minnesota Republican who chairs the senate investigations committee, after taking his seat at the front of the high-ceilinged hearing room, and swearing an oath to tell the truth.

"I'm here today, but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question."

The British press were having a great time with the story, describing how he had made the committee look like idiots, and also pointing out what a difference there is between British politics (where politicians are accustomed to frequent public debate and outright grilling) and US politics, where there is no equivalent custom of accountability. I was surprised to see it hadn't been linked here yet, so here it is.



Explosive showdown in Senate
By Matthew Davis
BBC News, Washington


George Galloway had vowed to give US senators "both barrels" and after sitting - coiled - through an hour-and-half of testimony against him, he unloaded all his ammunition.

Far from displaying the forelock-tugging deference to which senators are accustomed, Mr Galloway went on the attack.

He rubbished committee chairman Norm Coleman's dossier of evidence and stared him in the eye.

"Now 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 MP declared.

The whole room scanned Mr Coleman's face for a reaction. The senator shifted in his seat - nervously it seemed.

It was the first time a British politician had been interrogated as a hostile witness at the US Senate - but Mr Galloway cast himself not as the accused, but the accuser.

On stage at the heart of American power, he attacked the US-led war on Iraq and accused Washington of installing a "puppet" regime there.

'Lions' den'

The Scotsman launched into his opening statement with relish.

He had never received any money or any allocations of oil from Iraq. He was not, as the committee alleged, a supporter of Saddam Hussein.

"I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do, and than any member of the British or American governments do," he told the committee.

Mr Galloway had expected to testify before a panel of 13 senators in what he termed their "lions' den".

But he faced off against just two, Mr Coleman and Democratic counterpart Carl Levin.

It was Republican Mr Coleman who bore the brunt of the attack in one of the Senate's most flamboyant confrontations.

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong," he told the chairman, whom he labelled a "neo-con, pro-war hawk". (cont'd (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4553601.stm))

While the UK press clearly greatly enjoyed seeing the US senate committee made to look like idiots, they haven't blindly saluted Galloway as a hero either. Although the "evidence" of the US senate committee was clearly lacking, Galloway still has a reputation as an extremist and a somewhat eccentric personality.

Nonetheless, you just have to sit back and enjoy watching an outraged scotsman calling the US senators "neo-cons" and "Zionists" and a "pro-war lynch mob", who belong to a "lickspittle Republican committee" that was engaged in creating "the mother of all smokescreens". :lol:

Article from The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1486417,00.html)
Article from The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1616104,00.html)
Video/audio of testimony available here (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/05/17.html#a2978)

[Brian Rucker]

Galloway tends to put me off. I've seen footage of him standing in front of Saddam and calling him a great man of courage. And if Carl Levin's out to cook his goose there's probably something there to be cooked. Senator Levin is nobody's fool.

That said it was nice seeing a Republican moron like Coleman getting his ass whupped by somebody with backbone. Do we have to import ballsy senators or something?

[playingwithknives]

I dont like Galloway, but had to admire his style and ability during that trip. As said above, we have real politicians over here, and when they run into your corporate whores/lobbyist mouthpieces/"politicians" it does lead to some amusing lines.

[That Strange Girl]

Galloway tends to put me off. I've seen footage of him standing in front of Saddam and calling him a great man of courage.

According to the Wikipedia link:


In the late 1970s, Galloway was a founding member of the Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq (CARDRI), which campaigned against Saddam Hussein's regime in response to its suppression of the Iraqi Communist Party. He was critical of America and Britain's later role in supporting Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War and was involved in protests at Iraq's cultural centre in London in the 1980s.

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 infamously ended his speech with the phrase "Sir: I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability."

In the speech, 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 expressed regret over the flattering remarks within the speech directed at the Iraqi dictator.

(Mind you, what's he gonna say)

[Nellie]

I don't like Galloway much, but there has been a determined effort to trash his name in this country and it's backfired every step of the way, not least because he doesn't go down quietly. And anyone who uses "Lickspittle" is ok by me.


"I met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him," Mr Galloway went on. "The difference is that Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns, and to give him maps the better to target those guns."

[Midnight Son]

I love it.

[Tim Partlett]

The Bush and Blair administrations have got away with trashing too many people's reputations. It's good to see someone stand up and fight back even if I don't support him politically. I hate these smearing campaigns with a passion.

[Brian Rucker]

I tend to have a pretty good nose for fishy business and Galloway doesn't exactly smell lemony fresh. There's nothing I'd like more than to be convinced that there's nothing to his involvement with Iraqi oil vouchers, and in fairness there's been nothing like proof put forth yet. Still, the problem for me is that if this were a Republican I'd be convinced he was up to no good based on the information that's out there. And that this was a bipartisan commission lends creedence to the notion that there's more than the Noise Machine at work.

I'd like to see someone demonstrably clean come out with the lines and the gutsy delivery of a Galloway. It's long past time for folks to take a damn belt to the hides of the folks who got us into Iraq and are still spinning insanely about everything and getting away with it. The problem with hopping on the Galloway train is that I think it's headed for a cliff. And then what happens? One more way for Bush to change the subject and sideline legitimate criticisms.

[Nellie]

I'd like to see someone demonstrably clean come out with the lines and the gutsy delivery of a Galloway. It's long past time for folks to take a damn belt to the hides of the folks who got us into Iraq and are still spinning insanely about everything and getting away with it. The problem with hopping on the Galloway train is that I think it's headed for a cliff. And then what happens? One more way for Bush to change the subject and sideline legitimate criticisms.

It will be interesting to see if they can turn anything substantial up on him. "The Establishment" and the media have been trying here for years. Incidents like the conveniently found documents in an unguarded building in Baghdad that just so happened to be found by a Telegraph journalist. That one cost the Telegraph £150k to Galloway and £1.2m in legal fees.

Every organisation he's been tied to appears to have been investigated pretty thoroughly and the worst they've come up with is that he's a little free with his expense account from time to time but isn't fundamentally doing anything unlawful. Whilst I still don't personally think that he is as clean as a whistle, I'd level that accusation at 100% of politicians.

[Tim Partlett]

I don't think anyone would smell lemony fresh after having as much shit thrown at them as George Galloway. Nobody's perfect, and everyone has done or said something that could used to make them seem utterly immoral, especially when it is taken out of context and spun. Fortunately most of us don't run into the kind of guys who, when opposed, dig up every last detail of our lives and try and find some way of portraying that in the least positive light possible, while we don't have enough influence or money to have any significant defence.

If the worst anyone can come up with on Galloway is that he once said to Saddam that he was brave, and then later added that he meant the Iraqi people as a whole, then why should that mean that he probably did take the millions in bribes that nobody can prove he took? Why would he say to Saddam that he was brave and then later say that he meant the Iraqi people? Do people think that he is so stupid that he thought nobody would ever notice he said those words? Of course he knew, he's a politician. Was Saddam not considered as evil when he said those words as he is now, so Galloway might have believed he could get away with saying them? No, Saddam was considered as evil in 1992 as in 2002.

The worst I can see in Galloway is that he is egotistical and self-agrandising. Thankfully for him these are the very strengths you need to be able to fend off the kind of abuse he's had to put up with. Others, like Scott Ritter, don't seem to have the same gumption, unfortunately for them.

[Brian Rucker]

But you fail to address an important consideration, IMHO. If it's just Bush's cronies after Galloway what was Levin doing up there? Why was it a bipartisan commission that cast suspicion on Galloway (and the others accused)?

[Nellie]

The Democrats like Blair too?

[Desslock]

I'd like to see someone demonstrably clean come out with the lines and the gutsy delivery of a Galloway. .. The problem with hopping on the Galloway train is that I think it's headed for a cliff..

Exactly. Everything depends upon whether or not Galloway is actually guilty of what he's being accused of -- if he's not, or it can't be sufficiently proven, his aggressive counterstrike will be lauded as an example of standing up to American "bullies" -- but if it's sufficiently proven, which of course it will be, his "performance" will be remembered as yet another embarrassing, rude attack by a hypocritical left-wing moron whose selfish, misguided (and in this case, criminal) actions have hurt the efforts of those actually trying to improve the world.

[Kalle]

Everything depends upon whether or not Galloway is actually guilty of what he's being accused of <snip> but if it's sufficiently proven, which of course it will be, ....

Remains to be seen, but please don't let that stop you from condemning him. What would the world be if we couldn't viciously attack people without concrete evidence of their wrong-doing?

[Desslock]

Everything depends upon whether or not Galloway is actually guilty of what he's being accused of <snip> but if it's sufficiently proven, which of course it will be, ....

Remains to be seen, but please don't let that stop you from condemning him. What would the world be if we couldn't viciously attack people without concrete evidence of their wrong-doing?

I've been convinced by Claudia Rossett (who was just today awarded the 2005 Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Journalism) that sufficiently concrete evidence exists, so my characterization is quite apt.

[Anders Hallin]

his "performance" will be remembered as yet another embarrassing, rude attack by a hypocritical left-wing moron
The fact that they're so often true tells us something, of course. As does the fact that anyone coming with such attacks character is in ruin shortly afterwards.

[SpoofyChop]

I just got back from a trip to the UK.

My condolences. Did they confiscate your soul or just your guns and your foxes?

:wink:

[Kevin McGuire]

I just got back from a trip to the UK.

My condolences. Did they confiscate your soul or just your guns and your foxes?

C'mon man, play nice. That P&R is sometimes a den of unwarrented nastiness is perhaps unavoidable, but at least exchange a few paragraphs of ill considered vitriol first.

[Kalle]

I've been convinced by Claudia Rossett (who was just today awarded the 2005 Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Journalism) that sufficiently concrete evidence exists, so my characterization is quite apt.

I have never heard of the award earlier, but a quick googling reveals that the name of the award is the "Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism. I have no idea why you left out that bolded part, because it seems to be an important part of assessing the character of the award. Had this been an award in, say, investigative journalism the matter would come in another light.

If you or anyone else, say the senate committee, has any evidence that Galloway is a criminal and a perjurerer then by all means produce them and I won't complain as he goes to trial. But assuming he is guilty before verdict just makes you look silly.

[BrewersDroop]

I've been convinced by Claudia Rossett (who was just today awarded the 2005 Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Journalism) that sufficiently concrete evidence exists, so my characterization is quite apt.

I have never heard of the award earlier, but a quick googling reveals that the name of the award is the "Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism. I have no idea why you left out that bolded part, because it seems to be an important part of assessing the character of the award.

And if you check the list of previous winners, you'll see a litany of conservative editorialists. Unsurprisingly, the award is granted by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, parent of e.g. Fox News Channel.

[Desslock]

I've been convinced by Claudia Rossett (who was just today awarded the 2005 Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Journalism) that sufficiently concrete evidence exists, so my characterization is quite apt.

I have never heard of the award earlier, .., has any evidence that Galloway is a criminal and a perjurerer then by all means produce them and I won't complain as he goes to trial. But assuming he is guilty before verdict just makes you look silly.

I'm assuming he's guilty because I believe the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing to his guilt - but as I said in my initial post, if that turns out to be overstated, then he'll look good and I'll indeed look silly. Similarly, if he's found guilty, you'll look silly for championing an extremely bad guy.

By the way - had no idea what the award was (I just got an e-mail of it when I was making my post), but Claudia Rossett certainly has her share of investigative acclaim

[Tim Partlett]

It doesn't seem like this would be the first time that Carl Levin has toed the Republican party line.

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror." - Carl Levin

There's only been one serious trial attempting to prove his guilt, when Galloway took the Telegraph to court for slander over their claims that he accepted bribes from Hussein. I've heard of guilty before proven innocent, but not guilty after being proven innocent because some right-wing hack says so.

I don't want to defend the guy. I don't like him all that much, and I'm not a fan of his politics or style, but the evidence against him seems to about as watertight as that for Iraq's WMD. I'm sorry if I don't have much confidence in American (or British) politicians of either persuasion after the last round of lies.

[extarbags]

Similarly, if he's found guilty, you'll look silly for championing an extremely bad guy.


Demanding proof before you declare someone guilty is hardly championing a bad guy. But I have to thank you; I laughed so hard when Kalle pointed out what that award really was.

[Bren]

Caught in his own web of omissions.

[SpoofyChop]

C'mon man, play nice. That P&R is sometimes a den of unwarrented nastiness is perhaps unavoidable, but at least exchange a few paragraphs of ill considered vitriol first.

I added a winky...does that fix the problem.

:D

[That Strange Girl]

I added a winky...does that fix the problem.

:D

Spoofy winky'd at me. I, my guns, and my foxes (at least the ones that haven't been confiscated) are deeply offended.

[Mano]

Caught in his own web of omissions.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we practice to omit!

I read this article a few back, I thought it was quite amusing what Galloway was saying to the Senate Commission. Is he guilty or not? Well, presumed innocent until proven guilty is the way it's supposed to go eh?

[Linoleum]

I don't want to defend the guy. I don't like him all that much, and I'm not a fan of his politics or style, but the evidence against him seems to about as watertight as that for Iraq's WMD. I'm sorry if I don't have much confidence in American (or British) politicians of either persuasion after the last round of lies.

I'll give Galloway about as much of a benefit of the doubt as Chalabi. How about that? :lol:

[Kalle]

I'll give Galloway about as much of a benefit of the doubt as Chalabi. How about that? :lol:

Chalabi is a convicted felon who provided false information to facilitate a war. How does that compare to Galloway?

[mtkafka]

What this guy said is basically true... I mean anybody who STILL believes the war was fought over WMD's or freedom is, frankly, a dipshit. Is this Brit guy guilty? Who cares.

What's funny is America doesn't give a shit, and will never give a shit. You have more people interested in a pedophile pop stars court case than in the soliders dead, dying daily, in Iraq.

Oh well, carry on...

etc

[shift6]

I think a case can be made that the war is/was being fought for freedom. Not American freedom, certainly, but Iraqi freedom.

QT3 dipshit disclaimer: However, I don't believe that this justifies the lies told to sell it to us, nor the means by which we have conducted it, nor all of the disgusting things that have happened during it, nor the fact that the administration has bungled it, nor do I believe it was worth it. No one is swinging the reflex hammer, so keep that knee-jerk down.

[Jason McCullough]

A shitty case, yes.