George Galloway now testifying to Senate committee

Nils

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
66
Just watched the Newsnight report on it. Looks like Galloway ripped them a new ass. I'd say he was well aware he could have that Coleman bloke anyway - he's a bit of a wimp by the look of it. No wonder he was so eager to head over.
 


Trefor

Active member
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
273
Website
oclmenai.blogspot.com
Nils said:
Just watched the Newsnight report on it. Looks like Galloway ripped them a new ass. I'd say he was well aware he could have that Coleman bloke anyway - he's a bit of a wimp by the look of it. No wonder he was so eager to head over.
The boy did well alright.
 

BarryW

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
262
Nils said:
Just watched the Newsnight report on it. Looks like Galloway ripped them a new ass
Couldn't have put it better - in spite of my opinions of that prick.

Just goes to show that sissy yank politicians aren't able to cope with the real world when it slaps them in the face

Some of Galloways lines were better than others, but his overall theme was very effective:
That he was visiting Iraq throughout the 1990s to criticse the regime, while Rumsfled had been visiting to sell guns to Saddam
 

edifice.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
8,325
A powerhouse performance from Galloway!
 

Libero

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
2,994
geraghd said:
The senators came across as very professional, diligent, well briefed and fair & honest.
No they didn't.
They had made very specific allegations against him and when he rebutted them one by one, the Senators had precious little to fall back on.
The fact that the allegations had already been published pretty much as fact the week before makes it all the worse.

They were reduced to point-scoring over the calibre of Galloway's associates and his choosing to keep donations from dodgy sources. As if US Senators are strangers to such concepts.
I hope that people on these boards remember this charade when they sneer at the Tribunals in Ireland and suggest that Oireachtas committees of investigation can do a better job.

Galloway may have done better if he'd been less openly contemptuous of the Senate and its members. In other words, if he'd taken the approach of being hurt and only quietly outraged. As it was, he came across as an opponent rather than a victim and it may have been of more benefit if he had kept his voice low and determined, and said more lines like "I am sorry to say that I am very disappointed at the standard of investigation that I see before me. With respect, Mr. Senator, the people of America deserve better..." That kind of thing. While he has every right to be angry, that approach would have been even more effective.
 

Hana

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
8
Website
www.football365.com
It was interesting that it was only after the hearing that 'Mr Coleman said he didn't think Mr Galloway had been a "credible witness". If it was found he had lied under oath, there would be "consequences"'
Typical of the White house.
Also interesting to see how there could be consequences - he wasnt charges or extradited to face charges, How can there be any consequences for him?
 

watch-this-drive

Active member
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
162
Libero, you mean if he didnt play to his Muslim constituency and the secular left and descirbe the government as...

a "group of Christian fundamentalists and Zionist activists under the chairmanship of neo-con George Bush and the right-wing hawks."

I think he did alright though but by making a big noise, the Senators didnt really see it coming but he was very evasive to the Senate questions which was the purpose of the committee
 

david

Active member
Joined
Feb 6, 2003
Messages
190
Of course he was evasive. He's a politician.
 

edifice.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
8,325
watch-this-drive said:
Libero, you mean if he didnt play to his Muslim constituency and the secular left and descirbe the government as...

a "group of Christian fundamentalists and Zionist activists under the chairmanship of neo-con George Bush and the right-wing hawks."

I think he did alright though but by making a big noise, the Senators didnt really see it coming but he was very evasive to the Senate questions which was the purpose of the committee
Bullshit. The Committee tried to hang its hat on securing a denunciation from Galloway against a donor to his charity who may have been involved in oil deals in Iraq. Quite justifiably he refused to rise to it.

Also the attempts by Levin to secure from Galloway an affirmation of authenticity of the documents in question by asking 'are you not alleging they are forgeries' was pathetic and roundly rebuffed when Galloway demanded the originals and not some 'blurred photocopy'.

The purpose of the committee is exactly what Galloway said it was, a smokescreen to cover up the disaster that is the US occupation of Iraq.
 

watch-this-drive

Active member
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
162
Bullshit.
What was bullsh*t exactly?


The purpose of the committee is exactly what Galloway said it was, a smokescreen to cover up the disaster that is the US occupation of Iraq.
Really? seriously, listen to what you are saying, who in the world believes that a panel with 2 senators on it can overshadow 2 years of reports of violence?

What could come close to doing that? who would come up with such a meagre strategy if your goal was to create a smokescreen for occupation that is being reported on daily?

Do you think the committee has nothing to do with the UNs corrupt Oil for Food programme and Paul Volckers investigation into it?
 

edifice.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
8,325
watch-this-drive said:
Bullshit.
What was bullsh*t exactly?


[quote:1ik1tlwm]The purpose of the committee is exactly what Galloway said it was, a smokescreen to cover up the disaster that is the US occupation of Iraq.
Really? seriously, listen to what you are saying, who in the world believes that a panel with 2 senators on it can overshadow 2 years of reports of violence?

What could come close to doing that? who would come up with such a meagre strategy if your goal was to create a smokescreen for occupation that is being reported on daily?

Do you think the committee has nothing to do with the UNs corrupt Oil for Food programme and Paul Volckers investigation into it?[/quote:1ik1tlwm]

Your entire post was Bullshit.

So in the absence of WMD's (remember those?) the US must now be seen as the guardians of UN resolutions to 'justify' its occupation of Iraq? What a Wa*ker! Are we a student?
 

michaelturley

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
24
Website
www.michaelturley.com
Galloway was brilliant. It was the most electrifying political speech/defence/attack I can remember delivered in my lifetime. He was sure of his position (even if others weren't) and he had the platform he probably craved (and maybe deserves?). His performance certainly makes the vapid nonsense Blair and Bush often deliver appear anaemic.
 

Libero

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
2,994
michaelturley said:
Galloway was brilliant. It was the most electrifying political speech/defence/attack I can remember delivered in my lifetime.
He wasn't that good.

As the Scotsman reports today, Galloway blustered through a lot of it and allowd himself to get pinned down on the nature of his dealings with Mr Zureikat.
While that point is largely insubstantial (and really doesn't prove anything about the allegations in question), it does go to his credibility. Galloway was so sure of his script that he got nervous and went in for more bluster when tripped up on the point.
 

edifice.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
8,325
Libero said:
As the Scotsman reports today, Galloway blustered through a lot of it and allowd himself to get pinned down on the nature of his dealings with Mr Zureikat.
While that point is largely insubstantial (and really doesn't prove anything about the allegations in question), it does go to his credibility. Galloway was so sure of his script that he got nervous and went in for more bluster when tripped up on the point.
The garbage passing for political comment on this issue is breathtaking.

He was accused of making millions with Mr Zureikat and ends up being asked about whether it would disturb him that Mr Z may have donated money illegally obtained to his charity. From the sublime to the end of the barrell.

So what if he seemed nervous. The tanned Senator couldn't find enough paper on his desk to fidget with to avoid eye contact with Galloway, not to mention the crass rudeness of whispering into some officials ear whilst Galloway was rebutting the accusations made against him and pointing out some pertinent information concerning said Senators own financial contributors. Many establishment figures, both UK and US, were hoping against hope that Galloway would crumble. He didn't, the credibility of the Committee did. Lets not deny this fact with either 'academic reasoning' or Foxnews commentary.
 

watch-this-drive

Active member
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
162
Your entire post was Bullshit.
Nice

So in the absence of WMD's (remember those?) the US must now be seen as the guardians of UN resolutions to 'justify' its occupation of Iraq?
OK, Strawman, what are you talking about?
When did mention this is to justify the occupation?
I challenged your claim that it was smokescreen and you havent even tried to defend your position - you moved straight to this ridiculous strawman position - above.

What a Wa*ker!
Again, nice, what a competant debater you are, even the most lowly thought of regular poster here can defend their positions when it is challenged.
Are we a student?
No
 

edifice.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
8,325
watch-this-drive said:
Your entire post was Bullshit.
Nice

[quote:3943p3su]
So in the absence of WMD's (remember those?) the US must now be seen as the guardians of UN resolutions to 'justify' its occupation of Iraq?
OK, Strawman, what are you talking about?
When did mention this is to justify the occupation?
I challenged your claim that it was smokescreen and you havent even tried to defend your position - you moved straight to this ridiculous strawman position - above.

What a Wa*ker!
Again, nice, what a competant debater you are, even the most lowly thought of regular poster here can defend their positions when it is challenged.
Are we a student?
No[/quote:3943p3su]

WTD reading Foxnews! Nice.
 


Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top