George Galloway now testifying to Senate committee

edifice.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
8,325
watch-this-drive said:
Ediface, have you ever been mistaken for someone intelligent before?


All the time!
 


rockofcashel

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
8,200
Website
www.sinnfein.ie
just watched it. Very good perormance. Bet those senators didn't expect what was coming there.
 

edifice.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
8,325
watch-this-drive said:
Bet those senators didn't expect what was coming there.
Careful Rock, that passes for Bullsh*t around here
It passes for Politics actually. You should try it, particularly on a political website.
 

watch-this-drive

Active member
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
162
edifice. said:
[quote="watch-this-drive":1ctayk4e]
Bet those senators didn't expect what was coming there.
Careful Rock, that passes for Bullsh*t around here
It passes for Politics actually. You should try it, particularly on a political website.[/quote:1ctayk4e]

On you should try debating point you denunce as Bullsh*t, in terms of this thread you cant look any embarrassed than you already do
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,845
All together now ...
1

2

3

NEVER LET A WINGNUT LIE GO UNCHALLENGED

Lets see if what remains of the opposition Parties in the USA can get their head around the concept, and rip into the lies and BS with the aplomb of Gorgeous George.
 

edifice.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
8,325
watch-this-drive
On you should try debating point you denunce as Bullsh*t, in terms of this thread you cant look any embarrassed than you already do
[/quote]


Oops WTD passes a political point.




There, there.
 

watch-this-drive

Active member
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
162
Come on now Ediface, what are you afraid of?
Why arent you defending your point?

Is it because you are embarrassed of it?
Did you not think it through?
or in absense of being able to formulate you own opinion and having been impressed by Galloway you just said 'what that guy said'
(points at Galloway)
 

michaelturley

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
24
Website
www.michaelturley.com
Libero said:
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.
Libero, in my lifetime I cannot remember as passionate a political delivery, particularly when made in what must have been a hostile environment, so in my opinion it was that good (I'd be pleased if you can mention other political performances which might outstrip it). Whether one agrees with the man or not it was a performance that would stimulate interest in politics and I cannot think of another performance like it which makes politics as interesting (I suppose the nearest equivalent we have is the unelected Eoghan Harris who, sadly, is barking or bins campaigner Joe Higgins). I also like to see the underdog win once in a while.

Fair ball to the man.

Not being an expert on British politics I am still at a loss as to why so many individuals seem so hostile to Galloway. What is the actual basis for so much adverse commentary on Galloway?
 

watch-this-drive

Active member
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
162
michaelturley said:
Libero said:
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.
Libero, in my lifetime I cannot remember as passionate a political delivery, particularly when made in what must have been a hostile environment, so in my opinion it was that good (I'd be pleased if you can mention other political performances which might outstrip it). Whether one agrees with the man or not it was a performance that would stimulate interest in politics and I cannot think of another performance like it which makes politics as interesting (I suppose the nearest equivalent we have is the unelected Eoghan Harris who, sadly, is barking or bins campaigner Joe Higgins). I also like to see the underdog win once in a while.

Fair ball to the man.

Not being an expert on British politics I am still at a loss as to why so many individuals seem so hostile to Galloway. What is the actual basis for so much adverse commentary on Galloway?

IT was a good performance but I do think it was aimed at the commonest hear - this is why...

Galloway was passionately proclaiming his version of the recent history of Iraq, which wasnt the issue before the committee and the Senators werent going to engage in a discussion about the merits of his claims.
thats why it was all one way! Galloway knew that was the case and took full advantage (fair play) but that is why it was a little cheap - he knew it would all be one way

On the issues that were before the committee he was evasive.

He took advantage of the situation (fair play) but was seriously grandstanding, if you want an example of the behaviour of what I think Libero is alluding to then have a look at the questioning Maggie Thatcher got from a female member of the public on live television about the sinking of the Bellgrano during that Falklands - she stuck to one issue and drove it all the way home.
 

fish08

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2004
Messages
29
watch-this-drive said:
On the issues that were before the committee he was evasive.
For example:

Mr Galloway insisted that he was entirely innocent.

"Senator, I am not now nor have I ever been an oil trader and neither has anyone on my behalf," he declared, in language that deliberately echoed that of Joe McCarthy's anti-communist witch-hunt conducted half a century ago just metres from the chamber used for yesterday's hearing.

"I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one, and neither has anybody on my behalf," he said.
Now, and this may just be me, but that seems fairly clear cut. To be fair Galloway may be found to be lying in the above statement, but he could not really be clearer in his position. And, as Galloway had pointed out, there was no proof, merely allegations at this moment in time. He was evasive in that he rebutted attacks by returning the favour, but I don't think that really effected his stated case.
 

watch-this-drive

Active member
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
162
but he could not really be clearer in his position.
And in regards 'suspicious' donations to his charity?

its not just my opinion


And yet for all his anti-establishment credentials, Mr Galloway is as practised as any of his New Labour enemies at squirming away from awkward questions. Under scrutiny by Senator Levin, he deployed a classic example of the bait-and-switch technique that is the government minister's best defence in difficult questioning.


http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/sto ... 34,00.html
 

fish08

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2004
Messages
29
watch-this-drive said:
And in regards 'suspicious' donations to his charity?
But is that line of argument not evasive in itself. The issues before the committee were whether Galloway illegally profitted from the Oil for Food program, through cooperation with either Saddam or business associates linked to Saddam. There were separate allegations that a Mr Fawaz Zureikat was involved in trading oil, and through these dealings Galloway himself must have been involved. Since they were clutching at straws in this regards, I think its probably fair enough that Galloway practically ignored this claim, at least until something substantial is brought up to solidify this specific claim. Basically they could show that Galloway had dealings with this man, but they can show us no money dealings which make their way back to Iraq.

And hearing about "suspicious" campaign contributions from an American senator is pretty damned funny.

To be clear, as with most people, I would not be the first person to defend Galloway, but this particular attempt to bring down the man was very shabby.
 

Libero

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
2,994
michaelturley said:
Libero, in my lifetime I cannot remember as passionate a political delivery, particularly when made in what must have been a hostile environment, so in my opinion it was that good
But passionate does not always equal good. It's often an important ingredient in a great speech or performance but is no guarantee of excellence. I'm sure we've all heard plenty of passionate but idiotic rants.

michaelturley said:
(I'd be pleased if you can mention other political performances which might outstrip it)
In my own lifetime, a few that come to mind are...
Tony Blair's speech to the Labour Party conference, October 2001.
Des O'Malley's "I stand by the Republic" speech, 1985
Robin Cook's resignation speech in the House of Commons, March 2003

Of course it all depends on one's own political prejudices. While I think most people would accept that Galloway gave a good performance, I think they would also have to accept that it was not as truly electrifying or masterful as the above addresses.

fish08 said:
To be clear, as with most people, I would not be the first person to defend Galloway, but this particular attempt to bring down the man was very shabby.
Good call - I feel the same.
 

james toney

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
18,153
Like him or loathe him ..George was right.

[video=youtube;b-NK8bWiJoQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-NK8bWiJoQ[/video]
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom