anyone here heard of george galloway

[novascotiadiesel]

He is a member of parliment here in England. am wonderig if his appearance in front of a senate committy hearing on selling iraqi oil got any coveage in US.

It is interesting to see if it did, it got big coverage here. please comment if anyone has seen anything on it, and i will explain further, after finding out if US t.v. showed anything on it, or if it was in any of the papers.

Many thanks

[dreamingwolf]

he looked like he was gonna cry, his eyes were real watery

[E-Dog Night]

It did get some coverage here, but like anything else involving the War in Iraq, it won't get the coverage it deserves, because the media is actually very conservative these days, despite all the cries from the right wingers about the supposed liberal media.

The country at large doesn't want to hear about conspiracy theories, about oil for profit, or about anything that might expose the fact that we went to war in Iraq for a bunch of reasons that had nothing to do with WMDs or freeing the poor Iraqi people from their oppressors. All we want to know is that terrorists, or people who might resemble the stereotypical image of terrorists, are getting killed in large numbers. Anything else is the ranting of a bunch of liberals.

[SnyderShrugged]

I watched him and he spun with the best of them spewing the standard liberal "bush lied, people died" talking points.

Denied any responsibility for his top aid having been involved in the oil for food thing. Lots of deflection

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by E-Dog Night

It did get some coverage here, but like anything else involving the War in Iraq, it won't get the coverage it deserves, because the media is actually very conservative these days, despite all the cries from the right wingers about the supposed liberal media.

The country at large doesn't want to hear about conspiracy theories, about oil for profit, or about anything that might expose the fact that we went to war in Iraq for a bunch of reasons that had nothing to do with WMDs or freeing the poor Iraqi people from their oppressors. All we want to know is that terrorists, or people who might resemble the stereotypical image of terrorists, are getting killed in large numbers. Anything else is the ranting of a bunch of liberals.

That's utter nonsense.

You obviously know NOTHING about conservatives or critics of the UN because one of the biggest things they've been talking about has been the Oil for Food scandal.

And since we have detained/killed Palestinians, Syrians and otehr foreigners among groups of Sunnis who wish to return to the era in which the Kurds and Shia were murdered and oppressed, they don't fit a stereotypical image of terrorists they are VERY MUCH TERRORISTS. Unless you think car bombings, and murder-bombings(where a man is lured into driving explosives and not told it will be detonated) and sectarian slaughter is something that we shouldn't call terrorism.

And how would a left-wing MP from Britain getting loot from Saddam to get his view out there and influence peddling Russians indicate that we went to war for nefarious reasons, as you imply?

The media is only 'conservative' if your standard for centrism is the Nation or Mother Jones. And since the only blogs/web sites detailing all this stuff have been right-wing sites, I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about. The fans of the UN and international 'diplomacy' surely don't like talking about it.

I'd also point out that he got the toughest questioning from a Democrat. Galloway is a dirty MF.

[novascotiadiesel]

thanks, here the clips we saw showed him giving it to the senators big style, lots of witty quips, and direct challenges on shady dealings of US Govt' oficials, couple of eg.s when asked how many tmes he met saddam, he replied "the same amount as rumsfeld, twice, except i wasn't selling him weapons i was working towards peace" , and a bit of a rant about the fact that this was all a ruse to keep peoples minds off the fact that the war was neve really about what it was proclaimed to be about, my keyboard is malfunctioning so typing tis is taking an hour but this is an interesting issue i, thik i will find a copy of the transcript

[Zen-like Todd]

I'm not surprised at the British coverage, but its a total joke. It was covered here, but no one was remotely impressed, so that was the end of that. Congress isn't run like Parliament, where talk radio ramblings are the order of the day. He sounded like a typical Extremeskins tailgater, was evasive, and went on meaningless rants instead of answering the questions. Is that somehow supposed to be witty or impressive, or even novel? Its basic talk radio drivel, so the response was a lot of eye rolling. BFD. There's a reason most Americans who see Parliament in action laugh out loud.

[novascotiadiesel]

i am really looking for an intelligent defense of the bush admistration's actions inthismatter, intelligent. not a bunch of emotional unsubstantiated blather, but some good logical analysis, and want to hear it from some "real" people like you can find on xtremeskins, not a bunchof poli sci students.

i am not sure yet what i really think on the whole matter but have never heard anyone actually support bush's whole presidency in fact, here in europe you honestly can't find one person in conversation who can find anything to say on his behalf, and all i have heard as support for him by his supporters in the US has been negative commentary about those who oppose him.

I sincerely want to form an opinion on him but with the political coverage we have here the only opinion i can form is that he is a non achiever through much of his life, did coke, is not very intelligent and is an obvious puppet of oil and defense industries, surely there is more to the man than this, i am sensing there is more to the man than this, but i have never heard anyone pay him a compliment about any aspect of his leadership skills personality or intellect.

would really appreciate the other side of the story, and from some people who i have something in comon with, namely loving the skins!!

[novascotiadiesel]

just read the first part of my last post sounded like i was bashing, sorry wasn't bashing meant that i genuinely want to hear form the regular people not political pundits on tv sorry if there was any confusion!!

[Zen-like Todd]

Originally posted by novascotiadiesel

i am really looking for an intelligent defense of the bush admistration's actions inthismatter, intelligent. not a bunch of emotional unsubstantiated blather, but some good logical analysis, and want to hear it from some "real" people like you can find on xtremeskins, not a bunchof poli sci students.

i am not sure yet what i really think on the whole matter but have never heard anyone actually support bush's whole presidency in fact, here in europe you honestly can't find one person in conversation who can find anything to say on his behalf, and all i have heard as support for him by his supporters in the US has been negative commentary about those who oppose him.

I sincerely want to form an opinion on him but with the political coverage we have here the only opinion i can form is that he is a non achiever through much of his life, did coke, is not very intelligent and is an obvious puppet of oil and defense industries, surely there is more to the man than this, i am sensing there is more to the man than this, but i have never heard anyone pay him a compliment about any aspect of his leadership skills personality or intellect.

would really appreciate the other side of the story, and from some people who i have something in comon with, namely loving the skins!!

That's completely out of the scope of Galloways rants. Here's what I think you are missing. Galloway was testifying to a senate committee charged with investigating oil for food violations. The senator asking him questions doesnt give a damn about Galloway's opinions on the administration, the war, the reasons for going to war, etc. It had nothing to do with his testimony, and nothing to do with the committee. To respond would have been to fall for Galloway's gambit.

No, for a discussion of the reasons to go to war and not go to war, that's a big topic, but its one that has been hashed out time and again on this board. Its just that it has absolutely nothing to do with Galloway and his lame rantings. That just something you need to understand, in case you were under the impression that Galloway was accomplishing something other than evading the questions of his improprieties.

[Joe Sick]

Here is the video, if anyone wants to see it.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/05/17.html#a2978

or the transcript if you're at work.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0517-35.htm

Anyone who thinks that he didn't rip Coleman and this administration a new one is not being honest with themselves. (Of course, he is a bit of an extremist on other issues, but he was spot on here.)

Here are some highlights...

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

# "I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and American governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas."

# "You have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names from Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet government in Iraq."

# "The biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians," he said, "the real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own government."

# "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.

# 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".

------------------

This guy's attitude is "Bring it On!", but in a non-bombing, flightsuit wearing way.

And the reason he was deflecting is that his name was supposedly forged on the OFF documents. He didn't back down and called people out on their hypocrisy. I would be pi$$ed off if I was wrongly accused!

It's sort of like a reverse Rathergate.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4566448

It said Mr Galloway’s name had been pasted on to a list of people and companies alleged to have made money out of the Oil For Food programme.

His name appeared in a different typeface to other words on the same line, the print was lighter in colour and Respect suggested it had been stuck on and then the page re-photocopied.

His name also appeared at a slight angle and Respect said that would be impossible on the computerised document unless it had been artificially added.

Here is more good reading about the US involvement in OFF...Something about people in glass houses...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html

"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.

Yesterday's report makes two principal allegations against the Bush administration. Firstly, it found the US treasury failed to take action against a Texas oil company, Bayoil, which facilitated payment of "at least $37m in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime".

The surcharges were a violation of the UN Oil For Food programme, by which Iraq was allowed to sell heavily discounted oil to raise money for food and humanitarian supplies. However, Saddam was allowed to choose which companies were given the highly lucrative oil contracts. Between September 2000 and September 2002 (when the practice was stopped) the regime demanded kickbacks of 10 to 30 US cents a barrel in return for oil allocations.

In its second main finding, the report said the US military and the state department gave a tacit green light for shipments of nearly 8m barrels of oil bought by Jordan, a vital American ally, entirely outside the UN-monitored Oil For Food system. Jordan was permitted to buy some oil directly under strict conditions but these purchases appeared to be under the counter.

The report details a series of efforts by UN monitors to obtain information about Bayoil's oil shipments in 2001 and 2002, and the lack of help provided by the US treasury.

After repeated requests over eight months from the UN and the US state department, the treasury's office of foreign as sets control wrote to Bayoil in May 2002, requesting a report on its transactions but did not "request specific information by UN or direct Bayoil to answer the UN's questions".

Bayoil's owner, David Chalmers, has been charged over the company's activities. His lawyer Catherine Recker told the Washington Post: "Bayoil and David Chalmers [said] they have done nothing illegal and will vigorously defend these reckless accusations."

The Jordanian oil purchases were shipped in the weeks before the war, out of the Iraqi port of Khor al-Amaya, which was operating without UN approval or surveillance.

Investigators found correspondence showing that Odin Marine Inc, the US company chartering the seven huge tankers which picked up the oil at Khor al-Amaya, repeatedly sought and received approval from US military and civilian officials that the ships would not be confiscated by US Navy vessels in the Maritime Interdiction Force (MIF) enforcing the embargo.

Odin was reassured by a state department official that the US "was aware of the shipments and has determined not to take action".

The company's vice president, David Young, told investigators that a US naval officer at MIF told him that he "had no objections" to the shipments. "He said that he was sorry he could not say anything more. I told him I completely understood and did not expect him to say anything more," Mr Young said.

An executive at Odin Maritime confirmed the senate account of the oil shipments as "correct" but declined to comment further."

-------

It blows my mind how people are ready to bomb the UN building, Russia and France for their involvement, but totally give Bayoil and the US a free pass for being the biggest beneficiaries of cheap oil. Amazing, but I've come to expect it.

[Joe Sick]

Originally posted by dreamingwolf

he looked like he was gonna cry, his eyes were real watery

His approval rating is already at dismal, Bush-like numbers (around 43%).

Al Franken is going to mop the floor with him in a debate.

[Joe Sick]

Also, he won a libel suit against the UK newspaper The Telegraph for publishing the exact same accusations.

(Sorry for the triple post. Did a lot of editing and hit quote instead of edit.)

[visionary]

Interestingly enough they were saying on CNN the other day that his Palestinian wife left him because he is pretty a selfish, grandstanding creep.. who apparently cared more about getting more publicity than his marriage.

(Which now that I think about it, is not all that interesting...considering he is just a dirty politician anyway, worse then a lot, but possibly better than others in the past).

[smsmith40]

Galloway is a self-serving, pretentious idiot. All the Senate committe did was give him the much needed oxygen of publicity.

More fool them.