Fireworks Ahead

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by skunk, May 17, 2005.

  1. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #1
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4553759.stm

    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.
     
  2. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #2
    I wonder is C-Span will cover this. This sounds like it is going to be spectacular.
     
  3. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  4. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #4
    Still, this is a man who was sucking up to Saddam while he was gassing the Kurds. Can't effing stand him.
     
  5. iGav macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #5
    I'd starting building myself a bunker if I lived in Bethnal Green or Bow. heheheh
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    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.
     
  7. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #7

    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.
     
  8. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #8
    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.
     
  9. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #9
    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.
     
  10. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #10
    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.
     
  11. tristan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #11
    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.
     
  12. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
    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.
     
  13. tristan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #13
    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.
     
  14. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #14
    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.
     
  15. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    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.
     
  16. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #16

    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.
     
  17. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #17
    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.
     
  18. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #18
    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...
     
  19. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #19
    Interesting discussion on the NewsHour this evening.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june05/probe_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.
     
  20. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #20
    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.
     
  21. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #21
    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.
     
  22. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #22
    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.
     
  23. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #23
    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
     
  24. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #24
    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.
     
  25. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #25
    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...

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

Share This Page