Fireworks Ahead

[skunk]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4553759.stm

Galloway set for Senate hearing

George Galloway is preparing to appear before a US Senate committee that has accused him of receiving oil options from Saddam Hussein's regime.
The Respect MP for Bethnal Green & Bow has travelled to Washington for the hearing, but has dubbed the committee's report as "a schoolboy dossier".

The committee alleged Mr Galloway and French politician Charles Pasqua received oil rights from the Iraqis.

Respect has said a document used against Mr Galloway is forged.

Mr Galloway appeared relaxed and jovial when he arrived in the US, but made it clear he was going to go on the offensive.

"Get a ringside seat," was his advice to journalists.

Mr Galloway has said the Senate investigative committee's report is "full of holes, full of falsehoods".

"I am not expecting any justice from the innards of the US government but I want to appear not as the accused but as the accuser.

"They seem blissfully unaware that for people in the rest of the world the villains in the piece in Iraq are them."

I don't know about anybody else, but I'm really looking forward to George Galloway letting rip. Watch this space. I predict that the Senate committee will be left reeling.

[Xtremehkr]

I wonder is C-Span will cover this. This sounds like it is going to be spectacular.

[skunk]

Whew! He's going it some...

Listen to the video:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051700710.html

Way to go, George!

[Blue Velvet]

Still, this is a man who was sucking up to Saddam while he was gassing the Kurds. Can't effing stand him.

[iGav]

I'd starting building myself a bunker if I lived in Bethnal Green or Bow. heheheh

[mactastic]

Originally Posted by Blue Velvet

Still, this is a man who was sucking up to Saddam while he was gassing the Kurds. Can't effing stand him.

Not that this should change your opinion of Saddam or Galloway, but there is little to suggest that Iraq was responsible for the gas attacks at Halabja. Most people now think it was Iran that used gas there.

Link'd


This particular claim comes up over and over in these forums.

[Blue Velvet]

Originally Posted by mactastic

Not that this should change your opinion of Saddam or Galloway, but there is little to suggest that Iraq was responsible for the gas attacks at Halabja. Most people now think it was Iran that used gas there.

Link'd


This particular claim comes up over and over in these forums.

Interesting... had never heard this before.

Though my feelings for Gorgeous George stem mostly from the praise that SPUC have lauded on him. He just gives me the creeps... hardly a logical position to argue from, but I don't really care.

[Xtremehkr]

That was great. A complete knockout, and no prisoners taken.

That needs to happen a lot more often. No politician is perfect, but he did a damn fine job with this.

[Sayhey]

If you want to see his whole testimony it is available at the BBC's website for viewing. Unfortunately no quicktime, but it is there for the viewing.

[Thanatoast]

Damn. Galloway's my new favorite politician. I don't know anything about what he does or what his positions are, but he damn sure gave the Senate what for. If only my own representatives were so courageous and articulate.

[tristan]

I'll bring the rain for the parade - as much as I agree with Galloway's statements, his attack was mainly to deflect accusations that he profited from Oil for Food using a charity to conceal payments. Those accusations, which came from a bipartisan committee, are still outstanding and are supported by documentary evidence.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by tristan

I'll bring the rain for the parade - as much as I agree with Galloway's statements, his attack was mainly to deflect accusations that he profited from Oil for Food using a charity to conceal payments. Those accusations, which came from a bipartisan committee, are still outstanding and are supported by documentary evidence.

There are plenty of forgeries around in Iraq, courtesy of Chalabi and others. You know, the OIL MINISTER. It would be unwise to assume anything.

[tristan]

Exactly - unwise to assume either innocence or guilt. Some of the people caught up in OFF will be guilty, some will be innocent. We don't know yet where this guy will fall.

[pseudobrit]

Originally Posted by tristan

Exactly - unwise to assume either innocence or guilt. Some of the people caught up in OFF will be guilty, some will be innocent. We don't know yet where this guy will fall.

Because of the widespread skullduggery involved in the Iraq affair from all parties involved, will we ever know?

I think in this case the accusation is the only thing resembling a conviction they can get.

They'll drag people in and sully their names because that's all they can do.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally Posted by tristan

Exactly - unwise to assume either innocence or guilt. Some of the people caught up in OFF will be guilty, some will be innocent. We don't know yet where this guy will fall.

I agree. We have no way of knowing at this point whether the accusations against Galloway are true or false. It's possible we may never know. But as much as we may appreciate him bringing some rare fire-breathing criticism of the Bush administration to the halls of Congress, we should also take care that we don't bear-hug the man simply because we agree with something he said.

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by tristan

Exactly - unwise to assume either innocence or guilt. Some of the people caught up in OFF will be guilty, some will be innocent. We don't know yet where this guy will fall.

We have a pretty good idea though that 52% of the guilt belongs to Americans. The US has totally failed to show any evidence that would stand up in a court of law that Galloway is guilty. I think we know that Galloway is innocent. It would seem to be more prudent to go after the Americans who skimmed off the bulk of the oil instead of blindly attacking someone whose "guilt" can only be proven by forged documents.

[Sayhey]

If Galloway took money from Saddam's regime then the money has to be somewhere. So far all I've seen is that the Senate committee has some rather questionable documents that include his name. If they are going to make this charge stick, not just throw around scurrilous charges, then they need to show where the money is.

I betting they good Senators have nothing and it is all so much smoke and mirrors to portray the French, Russians, and anyone on the left who opposed the war as traitors. Could we get a Senate investigation into the distortion of intelligence by the Bush administration? We were promised one before the election, but instead we get this nonsense.

[mactastic]

Ah but now we have the right (well SOME on the right anyway) demanding an independent investigation into how Newsweek managed to get their story wrong because they relied on one anonymous source, while simultaneously blocking any effort to have an independent investigation of how the Bush administration got their story wrong by relying on one anonymous source.

And somehow the irony manages to escape them...

[IJ Reilly]

Interesting discussion on the NewsHour this evening.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/inter...robe_5-18.html

A small part of which goes to the bank records issue. Nobody seems to be sure whether the Senate has any power to obtain bank records, especially if they are held abroad. Possibly Paul Volcker will have better success, though I would not count on it. The other key is the Bayoil Co. of Texas, which seems to be at the center of the skimming and kickback scheme. Have their records been subpoenaed, I wonder?

One little piece of tape they ran in conjunction with this story was a clip of Mr. Galloway warmly greeting Mr. Hussein. Made me cringe. This is a man with a past, and a past that might not be as clean as the proverbial hound's tooth.

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by IJ Reilly

One little piece of tape they ran in conjunction with this story was a clip of Mr. Galloway warmly greeting Mr. Hussein. Made me cringe. This is a man with a past, and a past that might not be as clean as the proverbial hound's tooth.

Another forum I participate in, made up of mostly Brits, thoroughly lambasted Mr. Galloway for his anti-Semitic, pro-Arab sympathies. He seems to be the consummate politician and was evidently kicked out of the Labour Party for his numerous transgressions, and his wife, a Palestinian, is divorcing him due to his philandering. Not exactly a lily white character, that's for sure. Nonetheless, there is absolutely no solid evidence linking him to the Food for Oil kickbacks.

Once again, rather than look abroad for evidence of wrongdoing, there is plenty on our side that needs to be investigated especially since it seems to have been prompted from high quarters.

It could be that as he is an embarrassment to Tony as well, he's seen as an easy target, one that could deflect criticism away from American wrongdoing.

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by AhmedFaisal

So call him anti-zionist if you want, anti-semitic this is not. And btw. what other "democratic" country in the world besides Isreal discriminates citizens into different classes dependent on their religious orientation meaning anyone that is not jewish is a second class citizen in terms of legal rights?


Ahmed

That's a distinction that we don't often make on this side of the water. I've read a little bit about the current University brouhaha over Israel Universities not allowing Palestinians to attend. The possibility of that happening in the US is nil. It seems to be a pretty brave stand and only underlines the fact that the UK and the EU view Israel as a human rights issue whereas the US refuses to allow any criticism of Israeli policies. I don't think it's merely PCness either, as this has been the US stance for decades.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally Posted by Ugg

That's a distinction that we don't often make on this side of the water. I've read a little bit about the current University brouhaha over Israel Universities not allowing Palestinians to attend. The possibility of that happening in the US is nil. It seems to be a pretty brave stand and only underlines the fact that the UK and the EU view Israel as a human rights issue whereas the US refuses to allow any criticism of Israeli policies. I don't think it's merely PCness either, as this has been the US stance for decades.

Right, hardly. From at least the mid-1950s on, the US saw Israel as its geopolitical toehold in the Middle East. This was especially important during the days when Naser's Egypt was aligned with the Soviets. Sadly, US policy in the Middle East hasn't been adjusted much with the times, and under Bush, has back-slid.

[skunk]

Ever so slightly OT, but it continues to irritate me that anti-Jewish attitudes are described as anti-semitism. As you all know, Arabs are semitic, too.

Pedants R Us

[IJ Reilly]

If Zionism is defined as the desire for a Jewish homeland (and no more), then it's difficult to dissociate Zionism from "the Jewish people" (unless one's grasp of history is a bit shaky).

It may be too easy for me to say, sitting as I am on the West Coast of the US, but I believe Jerusalem should be in international city, belonging to no state.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by IJ Reilly

If Zionism is defined as the desire for a Jewish homeland (and no more), then it's difficult to dissociate Zionism from "the Jewish people" (unless one's grasp of history is a bit shaky).

Technically true, I suppose. But what about "Israeli"? Is any other nation described solely by its religious affiliation? The very term suggests a discriminatory attitude, and discounts the Israeli Arab - and Christian - population entirely. I suppose that using the term "Jews" implies that Israel as a state is dispensable...

It may be too easy for me to say, sitting as I am on the West Coast of the US, but I believe Jerusalem should be in international city, belonging to no state.

I absolutely agree: wasn't this on the cards once?