The British Are Coming
Hardball - Chris Matthews interviews Senator Norm Coleman and then has George Galloway respond, and once again Galloway hands him his ass.
Quicktime Required (free download)
Listen to Galloway and Learn Something Great link from the comments thanks Kali
George Galloway Defends Himself
George Galloway today accused US senators of manufacturing "the mother of all smokescreens" as he defended himself from charges that he profited from Iraqi oil sales. The anti-war Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, in east London, told the Senate subcommittee it had made a "schoolboy howler" in its investigation of illegal Iraqi oil sales. He said it was attempting to divert attention from the aftermath of the US-led invasion of Iraq.
"I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice," he told Senator Norm Coleman, the Republican subcommittee chairman.
"I am here today - but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever having written to me or telephoned me, without any contact with me whatsoever - and you call that justice."
Continue reading for the transcript
"Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader. and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one - and neither has anyone on my behalf.
"Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice.
I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction.
I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda.
I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001.
I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.
Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
"Now I want to deal with the pages that relate to me in this dossier and I want to point out areas where there are - let's be charitable and say errors. Then I want to put this in the context where I believe it ought to be. On the very first page of your document about me you assert that I have had 'many meetings' with Saddam Hussein. This is false.
"I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be described as "many meetings" with Saddam Hussein.
"As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defense made of his.
"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce.
"You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do.
"Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from the source is true, that I am 'the owner of a company which has made substantial profits from trading in Iraqi oil'.
"Senator, I do not own any companies, beyond a small company whose entire purpose, whose sole purpose, is to receive the income from my journalistic earnings from my employer, Associated Newspapers, in London. I do not own a company that's been trading in Iraqi oil. And you have no business to carry a quotation, utterly unsubstantiated and false, implying otherwise.
"Now 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 Baghdad. If you had any of the letters against me that you had against Zhirinovsky, and even Pasqua, they would have been up there in your slideshow for the members of your committee today.
"You have my name on lists provided to you by the Duelfer inquiry, provided to him by the convicted bank robber, and fraudster and conman Ahmed Chalabi who many people to their credit in your country now realize played a decisive role in leading your country into the disaster in Iraq.
"There were 270 names on that list originally. That's somehow been filleted down to the names you chose to deal with in this committee. Some of the names on that committee included the former secretary to his Holiness Pope John Paul II, the former head of the African National Congress Presidential office and many others who had one defining characteristic in common: they all stood against the policy of sanctions and war which you vociferously prosecuted and which has led us to this disaster.
"You quote Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Well, you have something on me, I've never met Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Your sub-committee apparently has. But I do know that he's your prisoner, I believe he's in Abu Ghraib prison. I believe he is facing war crimes charges, punishable by death. In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Airbase, in Guantanamo Bay, including I may say, British citizens being held in those places.
"I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances. But you quote 13 words from Dahar Yassein Ramadan whom I have never met. If he said what he said, then he is wrong.
"And if you had any evidence that I had ever engaged in any actual oil transaction, if you had any evidence that anybody ever gave me any money, it would be before the public and before this committee today because I agreed with your Mr Greenblatt [Mark Greenblatt, legal counsel on the committee].
"Your Mr Greenblatt was absolutely correct. What counts is not the names on the paper, what counts is where's the money. Senator? Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars of money? The answer to that is nobody. And if you had anybody who ever paid me a penny, you would have produced them today.
"Now you refer at length to a company names in these documents as Aredio Petroleum. I say to you under oath here today: I have never heard of this company, I have never met anyone from this company. This company has never paid a penny to me and I'll tell you something else: I can assure you that Aredio Petroleum has never paid a single penny to the Mariam Appeal Campaign. Not a thin dime. I don't know who Aredio Petroleum are, but I daresay if you were to ask them they would confirm that they have never met me or ever paid me a penny.
"Whilst I'm on that subject, who is this senior former regime official that you spoke to yesterday? Don't you think I have a right to know? Don't you think the Committee and the public have a right to know who this senior former regime official you were quoting against me interviewed yesterday actually is?
"Now, one of the most serious of the mistakes you have made in this set of documents is, to be frank, such a schoolboy howler as to make a fool of the efforts that you have made. You assert on page 19, not once but twice, that the documents that you are referring to cover a different period in time from the documents covered by The Daily Telegraph which were a subject of a libel action won by me in the High Court in England late last year.
"You state that The Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and 1993 whilst you are dealing with documents dating from 2001. Senator, The Daily Telegraph's documents date identically to the documents that you were dealing with in your report here. None of The Daily Telegraph's documents dealt with a period of 1992, 1993. I had never set foot in Iraq until late in 1993 - never in my life. There could possibly be no documents relating to Oil-for-Food matters in 1992, 1993, for the Oil-for-Food scheme did not exist at that time.
"And yet you've allocated a full section of this document to claiming that your documents are from a different era to the Daily Telegraph documents when the opposite is true. Your documents and the Daily Telegraph documents deal with exactly the same period.
"But perhaps you were confusing the Daily Telegraph action with the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor did indeed publish on its front pages a set of allegations against me very similar to the ones that your committee have made. They did indeed rely on documents which started in 1992, 1993. These documents were unmasked by the Christian Science Monitor themselves as forgeries.
"Now, the neo-con websites and newspapers in which you're such a hero, senator, were all absolutely cock-a-hoop at the publication of the Christian Science Monitor documents, they were all absolutely convinced of their authenticity. They were all absolutely convinced that these documents showed me receiving $10 million from the Saddam regime. And they were all lies.
"In the same week as the Daily Telegraph published their documents against me, the Christian Science Monitor published theirs which turned out to be forgeries and the British newspaper, Mail on Sunday, purchased a third set of documents which also upon forensic examination turned out to be forgeries. So there's nothing fanciful about this. Nothing at all fanciful about it.
"The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial activities with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact. It's a proven fact that these forged documents existed and were being circulated amongst right-wing newspapers in Baghdad and around the world in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi regime.
"Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.
"I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.
"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth.
"Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Halliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer.
"Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.
"Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government."
Tweet
Comments
can he be your president? please
Holy shit. This Dude is da Bomb. Play and repeat. Why can't the Democrats talk like this? DDMCGUIRE
Refreshing, isn't it.
It's not a surprise Americans watch C-SPAN because of the British political system.
George Galloway was recently elected to a constituency in East London that, I believe, has the highest proportion of Muslim's in England. Today he has shown that the flawed regime in the US accused have probably , heck why mess around, almost definitely falsely accused a great communicator with a mandate from a democratic election. How much war could be avoided if the "axis of evil types" could answer back like Gorgeous George
WOW!! thats all I can say
Where can I get this video? I have friends that dont have Quicktime, and refuse to install. I would like to find a windows version of it, so I can share it around. Thanks!
Dan, if you need to see it in windows media player, see the link below to the BBC website, and click on the video tag under the picture of Mr. Galloway, which shows the entire procedings of him kicking senator ass.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4556113.stm
But what about his role in the oil for food program? Yeah he kicks ass but what if he's guilty?
R.D, the comittee already said he was guilty, without even asking for evidence from him before hand.
The evidence that they have such as the documents were forged. He even won a high court battle in the UK which won him 1.2 million for false claims that the documents that the senators are using were fake and false.
It has even come to light that the documents that were shown to galloway have been copied and pasted with a photocopier. With different fonts and things being mis-aligned. The guy is inoccent, and as he says, he's being used as a smoke screen from the real guilt of the theft of billions of dollers worth of oil from the Iraqis by the U.S government.
They just didn't realise this anti-war MP could bite back unlike every other U.S lawmaker.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is what a politician with a spine, sounds like. America could use a few Galloways!
What about GG's thinly veiled accusation that the neo-cons (through their informants) are selectively targeting public figures who were/are against the invasion of iraq?
Don't be totally seduced; Galloway is himself a rather shifty fellow and something of a political opportunist, but as a rhetoritician there's few finer. The 'charges' are ludicrous, and when you accuse someone as litigious as George on grounds already shown in court to be false (when the telegraph brought the subject up AAAAGES ago) you're just asking for trouble.
If you liked his appearance in the senate, you might like his appearance on (british) election night too. Search for Galloway +Paxman on the BBC site and you'll get a very entertaining couple of minutes for your trouble.
Ohmigawd....amazing! I hope some of the liberal politicians study this.
To the last anon who said he was something of a political opportunist - well, he is a politician, right? We'd all have to be extremely naive to expect anything less but...shifty...what does THAT mean? There are lapses (in ethics, morality, judgment - whatever) and then there are LAPSES (and of course, then there is Bushco farther past that than we thought possible....)
More than anything, I would hate for something true to come out that the right wing could use against him, yet again, for their favorite trick - and he called it out - the smokescreen (although I think of it more as misdirection.)
Dan, www.crooksandliars.com has a real player version of it, and may also have an audio for Windows Media. Just scroll down a bit on the page.
Galloway's one of the most controversial and complex figures in British politics, and as you'd expect this appearance before the Senate has been headline news in Britain. However, I've lost count of the number of times someone has accused him of some great crime that's supposedly going to finish him off or destory his career, and every time he's cleared his name. In Britain, he is one of the right-wing press's favourite hate-figures. He's made some spectacular comebacks, particularly at this month's election when he stood against a popular Labour MP and won a seat in Parliament as an independent, after being expelled from the Labour Party for calling on British troops to refuse to obey their superiors in Iraq (on the grounds that the war was illegal and following orders would make them war criminals). He's something of a demagogue and known for being litigious (although if I had as much crap thrown at me as he does I probably would be too).
He's a great public speaker and I was really impressed by his performance before the committee. There is some talk over here tonight of how he could be jailed in the USA for lying to a Senate committee. I don't know how many are seriously calling for this, but since he's an elected representative who won the support of the electorate only days ago, and the charges are trumped-up anyway, this suggestion is going down really badly.
Amnerican politicians need to stop being politicians and learn to spit out some fire like this Galloway cat. As far as the war goes I will ask the same question I asked befor we invaded: What is your best case scenario for Iraq? I think the best case scenario is going from really bad to truly disastrous.
BANG BANG. How I enjoy the British candor. Learn something, Democrats. This is how you deal business in Washington.
Just get Quicktime you weenies!
My daughter and I each wrote a thank you e-mail to Mr. Galloway through his political office - office@respectcoalition.org I'm sure they will see that he hears about it.
Why does it take British politicans to best articulate partisan American politics (as Blair did for Bush). And it's so refreshing to hear somebody state the obvious... that those who opposed the war were right and the supporters were wrong. That should be the mantra of all liberal Democrats when appearing on the cable shows.
Yes, Galloway was great today. It's too bad he doesn't look so good on video visiting Saddam Hussein and praising him.
Kind of reminds you of
Doesn't it :)
for those of you too young to remember that - it was Special Counsel for the Army Joseph N. Welch taking Tailgunner Joe - a.k.a. Senator Joe McCarthy apart at the 1952 Army - McCarthy hearings. It was the start of the downfall of McCarthy's power and we can only hope that Galloway's remarks will do the same to this poisonous regime.
His handshake and praise for Saddam caught on tape is no more embarrassing than Rumsfeld's.
As far as I remember Rumsfeld was selling Saddam weapons at the time.
Besides, if Galloway maintained bullshit diplomacy with Saddam in pursuit of humanitarian motives, I think that is a lesson US Foreign Policy could learn from. Killing the threat of North Korea with kindness would be a good start.
Let's hope Galloway is indeed as innocent as he claims. It will be a disgusting thing if he is as corrupt as the current administration selected by the American people to ride roughshod over the planet's resources.
I saw this today on TV and was blown away. I was cheering at the top of my lungs. It was great to see it again. Powerful and moving. This guy is a great speaker.
I watched the Hardball interview, gotta love that Hunchback of Notre Dame bit. Its not like the opposition to Iraq has been quiet, but here is a guy who can articulate his position and actually speak clearly, which is what we sorely need
I, for one, cannot WAIT to see what Jon Stewart does with this!
:D
I don't know if Galloway is guilty or not, Senator Levine is no fan of the Bushivieks, but he had serious doubts about him based on evidence which as of yet remains unseen.
But I do know this... The American audience was captived by a brilliant orator saying things that needed to be said.
For four years+ I have felt that I was trapped in some Orwellian nightmare and the lunatics had truely seized control of the asylum. The rage that I feel has been bottled up and when Gorgeous George unloaded with his gattling gun blazing into the faces of those cretins I found myself cheering him on... it was a beautiful moment of sanity, such clarity.
It may not do any good in the final analys as we may slide into despotism with tomorrows filibuster voting... but God I envy that man, the chance to look them in their faces and let have it like that! Bet he sleeps like a babe tonight.
Galloway gave an interview to a CNN reporter, who had his White House "talking points" card close to his chest, that was equally entertaining.
To paraphrase badly:
"They haven't got a single shred of evidence that I received one dollar from anyone in exchange for oil... not even so much as one thin dime or a single loaf of bread because I never have."
What they do have is a "secret witness" who they won't identify and the people have had enough of "secret witnesses" like the ones who told this administration that Iraq had WMD."
The reporter then said, "Well you know that you're under oath and there are penalties for perjury."
Galloway didn't miss a beat saying, "sonny... the liars are on the other side of the microphone" and laughed in his face.
The reporter got this look on his face like someone who just discovered his dog was pissing on his leg. It was just priceless!
echo-
Man why cant they talk like that in this country...
All this talk of the UN being a guilty party in sanction busting - I always understood that the organisation known as the UN doesn't exist as an independent executive body. It is merely a label for activities conceived, collectively agreed upon and performed by the member countries, of which the US is a large component.
Howcome then that the US administration seeks to scapegoat the UN as some sort of independent organisation that they can blame as a 3rd party?
WHOOOooo! It's worth going back and listening again to the senator. You start to realize that he is lying through confusing the issue. Politicians use confusion as a tactic all the time. He starts talking about "allocations" and "documentation". He doesn't have any proof and that's when he answers the question "did Galloway profit", as "Yes (in the end)". Galloway is kicking ass. I want to see and hear more of this guy. You can tell he's talking straight, you can FEEL it. 1 million children died in Iraq as results of sanctions? Hmmm that little tidbit doesn't seem to be news...
Excellent point, bud. To someone else earlier today, I likened it to discovering your furniture with screws falling out, and blaming your screwdriver.
RealityBites~
Of courseyou mean ...
1 million FUTURE TERRORISTS
Not people and especially not children...get with the newspeak citizen!
I've watched it 3 times.... Calls the politicians straight up "Canivers". My what guts.
meh, whether he's guilty or not, his analysis of the hypocrisy of the current government is still valid.
If you want to see more of Galloway in action I really recommend these clips from election night, one where he stormed out of an interview on live tv a few minutes after he had won, and there's another of the announcement of the result followed by his victory speech where he ripped into Tony Blair before telling the electoral authorities they were all corrupt. Whatever you think about him, and he's no saint, it's always worth watching when he comes on tv.
Someome send this video to Howard Dean ASAP; this must be told to articulate the Democrats position for the next round of elections. We need to stop being pussies and start telling it like it is.
amazing candour. sound logic. moral fibre. i applaud his gutsy performance.
maybe it's the effect of a british accent on an american raised by hollywood, but this guy sounds dirty to me
Dirtier than the corrupt system he's unmasking? I don't think so.
Besides, they clearly got nothing on him. Oh, and his accent is Scottish, not that I ever thought a person's accent revealed any personal traits, other than regional origin. Don't compare Hollywood with Scotland...
you didn't understand my post one bit maybe you didn't want to
Hi Freedom!,http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002119.html#comment9196 Yeah, I understand how you feel, a bit someone who's been in the dark and suddenly get's the sun in their eyes, it can be painful, but you live in a country where the likes of George G have not had such exposure for reasons that I don't understand. He's shining a light for freedom, neocon's have been putting up mushroom clouds and "smokescreens" for quite a while in the USA. His truth, to you sounds dirty, but step out of the darkness of your media bunker, give yourself time to readjust, it' will be ok.
freedom!, there is something a little wrong with you if you think someone "sounds dirty" based on their accent (you also think there's a British accent which is patently absurd, given that Scottish (i.e. Galloway) and English accents differ as much as English and American, or Canadian and South African, etc), and what's more you're prepared to admit that this prejudice is based on being "raised by hollywood". JohnHarnett has it quite right: you've been living in the dark until now, and perhaps if you start looking at things rationally you will recover from that.
Mr. Gallowglass (as we affectionately call him) is, charitably, a bit of a git. The jurry's still out on whether he is also a crimminal, but damme the man can speak. As a previous commenter pointed out, it takes a good wordsmith to put Paxo in his place, and get a Private Eye cartoon out of it to boot.
is there no one with a sense of humor here?
come on people, please read my comment and think just a little before responding to it i was alluding to hollywood's (the movie industry not the city) practice of giving villans accents
if I didn't recognize this guy as scottish why would I have chosen "freedom!" as my name
pardon me for trying to add a laugh to this page I give up
Hi Freedom!, just alittle bit too subtle for me. This man is showing opposition a new approach in the US, now is not the time to tax my poor brain. I critize your idea as inappropriate, but this is still the internet so anything goes, so thanks for the clarification on your humour, it WAS needed.
Freedom!, the context with which your joke was placed might have been a touch too equivocal. Bear in mind that the typical neo-con speaker is about as ironic as the Eiffel Tower-but unintentionally (arguably)-then I can understand the confusion where an intentional ironic joke appears as similar. My oh my how our poor minds have been tainted in such subtle ways!
With the overabundance of irony in American television these days, I hope we labour to keep our thinking caps on.
That's one consistent I've noticed in Galloway's oration, he has an eye for irony.
Yeah, that "Hunchback of Notre-Dame" comment was pretty funny.
Well, while it was good to see someone stand up to the likes of Norm Coleman and the of the Oil-For-Food Senate investigation comittee, there were reports of Galloway enciting racial tensions to secure his seat in Bethnel Green & Bow this year. Hmmmm.
It is good to know that there are so many like minded people out there that share my views on what is wrong in the world today. When are we all going to get together and change things for the true good of mankind instead of allowing the rich people at the top to continue in this vain. It is only by being united we can make a difference.
I would like to add one thing though, How do people not realise that it is us normal people that have to fight these wars to make people richer and not only that we pay for it with our own tax paying money" That is some scam they have going wake up and start to smell the coffee people and lets change things so we are leaving a good legacy for our children.
For what it's worth I'm slapping a link on my blog so that my five readers will find you. Thanks for posting this and many other fantastic, high quality clips.
Thanks Wiggles
This is AWESOME!!! He has said what so many of us have been thinking. Everybody needs to see this clip!
I've read all of your comments, and I have thoroughly enjoyed the various ways people have stated how they are so happy that a man exists who "finally says what I've been thinking all along...."
The words George Galloway chose were not exactly poetic. His rhetoric was nothing extraordinary. Perhaps the only thing extraordinary was the ordinariness of his speech.
Is it really that difficult to raise independent thoughts of your own? ...To defend your ideas and your beliefs against those who would oppose you?
It takes a visit from a third rate British politician to state the case for the vast dumb segment of the population who aren't capable of transforming their thoughts into words for themselves.
Please reassume your prostate position on the floor while you await the Daily Show to help you figure out what is going on in the world.
If they make the news funny, some Americans actually watch it.
You just know how the right-wing bloggers will spin this: They'll find ways to smear Galloway and steer the discussion away from his words.
I am sure Powerline or Instapundit will produce Photoshop-enhanced pics of Galloway blowing Saddam.
Meanwhile, we learn that the biggest dirtbags in the oil-for-food scandal were not the French, left-leaning British MP's, or Kofi Anan. Nopers. It was Texas oilmen.
This report in the Washington Post tells us all we need to know:
"The report presented Monday indicates that American imports of Iraqi oil helped finance about 52 percent of clandestine deals carried out illegally under the oil-for-food program at the time when Iraq was under United Nations sanctions."
"The report looked at kickback allegations against a Texas company, Bayoil USA, which was indicted in the investigation of the $67 billion oil-for-food program. The program allowed Iraq to sell oil to buy civilian goods for its people living under United Nations sanctions."
"It contends that Bayoil "facilitated" about $37 million in illegal surcharges to Mr. Hussein and then engaged in lobbying efforts to influence the price of Iraqi oil and to oppose American efforts to stop the surcharges.
"Bayoil engaged in this misconduct for nearly two years, from 2000 to 2002, without attracting meaningful oversight from any U.S. agency," the report said."
I wonder how much cash Bayoil dumped into the campaigns of Bush and Tom Delay.
Clive,
Very interesting perspective about the "vast dumb segment of the population." Isn't it a dangerous thought to support a system that allows a "vast dumb segment of the population" to elect governing officials, especially if that "vast dumb segment of the population" just so happens to be the majority? Should the helm of a nation be held at the whim of a potentially "vast dumb (= stupid = unable to make sound decisions and/or think for themselves) segment of the population?"
I certainly hope that you are not referring to me as the type of person who would lay prostrate in front of a television airing the Daily Show to discover what's happening in the world around me.... Uncertain if that comment was a generic comment about the "vast dumb segment" or was directed at me...?
Out of curiousity (your choice to answer--as it is your choice to write anything at all), are you an American yourself? Your comment about Americans and what they watch sparked my interest.
mat,
Galloway himself was afraid to answer certain questions. Everyone gets excited reading the most interesting part of Tuesday's Senate spectacle, which was the first fifteen or so minutes of Gorgeous George's initial soliloquy. Once the Senators actually started asking questions and interacting, George seemed a bit ruffled at times.
I have to admit that I enjoyed reading the words in script and hearing his delivery via video feeds, but most people don't bother to sit through the more difficult part of his actual exchanges with the questioning Senators. You must admit that George was very evasive when asked whether he was troubled by one of his most prized donor's activities. This is not steering away from George's words but concentrating on exactly what he was afraid to say--yes George was actually afraid to say something in the U.S. Senate....
Would you argue that all Texas oilmen are dirtbags? If not, then no further discussion necessary. Just curious, as always....
Do you really think that a few excerpts from a Washington Post article could possibly ever provide someone "all that they need to know" about a given subject? What if we found out that Bayoil contributed $0 toward either the Bush or DeLay campaigns (perhaps unlikely, but I like to play what if)?
USD8.8 billion of US Taxpayers money has gone missing in Iraq. No-one seems to know where it is. And the media are compliantly keeping it quiet.
Strange how all-important the arguments about filibusting of Judicial Nominations has become.
Luckier still, Star Wars 3 is out. That and Michael Jackson should engage the national braincells to their full capacity for the next few weeks.
devadv, the dumbness that I was referring to is not that of those currently in power, drinking greedily from the honeypot. They have their cake, and they are eating it.
It is the dumbness of the squealing piglets who set themselves so pathetically in opposition. Far too little, far too late. The planet has suffered damage because of the low quality of US democracy - laziness and ignorance on one side, corruption and greed on the other.
Europe should send over a stand-up comedian next, a folk singer or a talk show host. They can make some bone obvious statements about the raping of America by Bush and his cronies.
The piglets will be squealing again in delight "Oh my god, that is just what I have been thinking!"
Clive,
I have to say that you are quite unique on this blog with your views. I am surprised to have run across you. As this is my first blog experience, I was wondering what type of people I might run into. I am pleasantly surprised.
There are certainly people in power who should not be there. We are certainly in lands where we should not be. The best we can do is put up with those who are who they shouldn't be and do the best we can in those places where we are where we shouldn't be.
My observation is that those with power are typically successful opportunists. Without 9/11 George W. Bush wouldn't be who he is today. Without the Iraq war and the (perhaps false; who knows?) allegation against him, the other George (Galloway) wouldn't have stirred up so much excitement about himself and his simple views.
What I don't agree with is your fatalistic approach. It's never too late (no I'm not naive, although phrases such as this might indicate so). It will just take a successful opportunist from the other side to correct at least some of the wrongs of our current regime.
The environment is definitely in trouble, though. I'm afraid that you might be correct that this aspect of the world and life in general is about to reach a rather unfortunate conclusion. Even if we act now, it's probably in reality too late to do anything significant to curb the damage that's already been done. But you never know; the earth is resilient. Action is the key and not complacency or pessimism.
You don't have a bad idea about having someone from another land come to America to open up the masses' eyes. I have lived in Europe for the past seven years and have a 180 degree different view of America's place in the world. Americans are generally egocentric, and the country as a whole is natio-centric (new word?). Instead of teaching in history classes that it is the U.S.'s "manifest destiny" to be #1 in the world, young Americans should be taught that they are among the most fortunate in the world and should do all that they can to take advantage of that fact in the best possible ways and not squander the opportunity to perpetuate their good fortune. With recent decisions, perhaps the "lasting empire" is no longer a reality.
As for the piglets, let them squeal. People of action and people of sound mind and judgment are needed to reverse some of the current political tides. The piglets will only grow up to be pigs anyway.
Funny how they tried to frame him even when he explained it in detail that it is all nonsense. This insistency on short answers.
These neoconservative seems to live in another world of reality, you can tell them endlessly something is not true and they still don`t get it and believe their own propaganda.
You folks should watch "The Power of Nightmares" from the BBC. Available over torrent or on http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm
The trick with producing false evidences of weapon systems and terrorist links is not new to Rumsfeld and his gang.
Cheers from Germany
Decadv, Actually I am not totally pessimistic, but it will take at least a decade for America to swing itself back into the high levels of esteem that the majority of the thinking planet once held it.
Not that the common American really gives two hoots what the rest of the world thinks.
My fatalism is probably a worthless attempt to motivate people to stand up and take action. Not a one-off rally, but sustained thoughtful and responsible action.
My new worry is that people will exhaust their better intentions into the vacuum of blogland. But will stop therem having vented their virtual spleen onto the internet; without actually doing anything or participating democratically.
Very interesting to learn your views Devadv, particularly as you are that rare species of American who has lived on the outside and can better appreciate global realities, and the existence of intelligent independent lifeforms overseas.
I shit you not. Leno did a street survey of several hundred passers-by a few years ago in LA: 65% thought Julius Caesar was either (a) a Vegas casino owner (b) a chef who invented a salad sauce. These are the people who are entrusted with the right to vote.
Clive,
I am happy to learn that you are tactical with your comments. It is intriguing. Too many people do end their most powerful thoughts once they have either written them down or barked them in a heat of passionate debate only to be withdrawn into the depths of uselessness.
As for the decade timeline you propose for America to heal itself, I think it could be shorter if the right person were in charge. As it is, I have no idea who in U.S. politics could make that correction so quickly.
I don't agree that blogland will be a waste receptacle for good ideas. Although it can be a venting source, I think that it can also be a generator for some people, but I'm still an amateur at the blog thing. So I might later on decide that you're indeed right in your assessment.
What I originally intended to do was throw in a counter view against what everyone else was writing on this blog to see if I could debate with someone about why they viewed Galloway as a ray of hope. My intention was to play devil's advocate (hence devadv as my blog name here) to spark a debate with people willing to defend themselves. Well, it just so happened that you of a like mind were my only respondent.... But I am happy for the discussion.
As I am from Louisiana (of all places), my first thought was that your LA abbreviation was for my home state. Now I understand why ONLY 65% of the people Leno interviewed didn't know who Julius Caesar was....
While I know they have taken enough hits over it, you only have to think of Florida to draw the conclusion that perhaps the right to vote should be limited to truly intelligent life forms and not just to those who can muster the ability to live until the age of eighteen....
As I'm in Germany still, and it's just about 03:00 a.m., I'm going to bed.
To clear up a couple of points.
1) 'Galloway incited racial tensions to win his seat at Bethnal Green and Bo'
This is false. This is a talking point invented by the election night commentators who did not know what they were talking about (see immediately after the Paxman interview). The reason for thinking this is that Galloway stood in a very ethnically diverse London seat rather than a seat in Glasgow. The claim is made by political pundits that he did this 'to incite racial tensions' in order to get elected, but in fact this claim reveals more about how uninformed and naive a great number of 'expert' commentators on the general election night were. Galloway moved to Bethnal Green because his seat in Glasgow was taken away by the electoral boundaries commission (the people who decide the boundaries for UK constituencies). It was recently decided to cut a number of the Scottish constituencies to redress a slight imbalance which has been there (intentionally) since Scotland and England united. If George had stood where the majority of his constituency had been, it would have meant running against Mohammad Sarwar which he chose not to do because Sarwar is a personal friend, was the first muslim MP in parliament and has a political outlook very similar to Galloway's. Instead he went for the seat he was most likely to win, which happened to be Bethnal Green and Bow based on their electoral results in the European election. Racial tensions have sod all to do with anything - he didn't make the decision to stand there based on them, and he didn't run his campaign in a way which capitalised on them. For those of the more curious among you, the BBC put an audio recording of hustings from his constituency on their website. If you wish to make authoritative statements about Galloway's campaign, perhaps you should actually listen to it; which is more than most British journalists did, instead preferring to mimic their peers regardless of the truth of their claim.
2) Where Galloway was evasive.
If you listen to the hearing closely you'll see that galloway was evasive on one point only which was; did he know that the man who was a substantial contributor to his political organisation in Iraq (which was exclusively devoted to campaigning against UN sanctions and has nothing directly to do with Galloway's political career) was dealing in oil. The reason he was being evasive is because the answer is almost certainly 'yes' simply because Galloway isn't an idiot and like he said the man in question was one of the most major businessmen in Iraq. He didn't know for sure because he didn't ask, but of course he suspected. If it is true however then the man in question would be on the 'food' side of the oil for food scandal - is it really a crime to try and get food if you are starving? What about trading for food if your country is starving? The people we should be hounding are not those recieving food or - in Galloway's case those who received contributions to a fully autonomous humanitarian activism group from people who were receiving food - but those who were receiving the oil and trading it. The truth of the matter should be apparent to everyone: Galloway recieved contributions to his campaign to repeal sanctions from a man who he could have reasonably suspected as dealing in oil for food but who he did not know was dealing in oil for food because he didn't not ask him categorically because he was under no obligation to. Galloway received NOTHING from his organisation personally and the only way he can be said to have profitted is from extra political capital in the eyes of his muslim constituents which is one of the main reasons he was involved with Iraq in the first place. Glasgow has a fairly high muslim population, particularly in what was George Galloway's constituency and it should only be expected that he would represent his constituents overseas as well as at domestically. As George pointed out, there is no way he could say from what portion of his contributors business empire the money came because such monies are not earmarked - what is indubitably true is that the man in question was engaged in a lot more business than just oil and so if one were to take an average, most of his contribution came from legitmate sources.
3) Galloway as a political opportunist.
I was accused of being naive when I mentioned it earlier because it is apparently expected that all politicians are political opportunists. Well, perhaps I failed to emphasise the point so I'll stress it again; I like George, I like what he has to say (usually), I like how he says it and I told him this in person the last time he came to the Cambridge Union, but what is undoubtedly true is that he is a political opportunist of the highest order. Despite his impressive performance before the senate you should know he is not above lying to further his personal agenda; several times in the campaign in Bethnal Green and Bo and particularly during the hustings in the town hall he (deliberately) misrepresented both his record and that of Oona King in order to make himself seem more active in minority and discriminatory facets of the party, and Oona King seem weaker - a good example is the labour partys committee (commission? I dunno, whatever it is) on electoral reform which is a minority part of the labour party devoted to campaigning for proportional representation. George claimed his advocacy of proportional representation as a plus for him to which Oona King pointed out that she was the chair of Labour's committee on the subject and that when he was still a member of the labour party she never once saw him at any of the meetings. George Galloway's dismissal from the Labour party is rather odd too. He was dismissed ('had the whip withdrawn' for those who like obscure political terminology) when the telegraph claimed he had been having secret negotiations with Saddam and had been selling him secrets or somesuch nonsense. He was dismissed from the party, he sued the paper and he won - big time. As Galloway points out whenever he can, it is a very expensive hobby to lie about his past. He was not reinstated into the party, despite having proven his image however as he doesn't fit with the 'New Labour' image, seeing as he is a genuine socialist. One of George's main emphasis in campaigns and television appearances since then is how so many of Labour's members are simply stooges who blindly do everything they are told to by the party leadership and vote along party lines on every issue. But it is worth pointing out that when George was still a Labour MP he had a PERFECT VOTING RECORD with the whips office. That means that from Labour's landslide victory in 1996 till his dismissal from the party, he voted the way the party wanted him to vote on every issue. And he has the temerity to call other people stooges.
I like Galloway, I genuinely do, but please don't be too seduced; he isn't perfect, he's just a fucksight better than the wankers you guys keep electing across the atlantic.
this guy has some balls . and it is about time that someone
used them.!
Re: Accents.
Galloway has a British accent, even though it is Scottish, because Scotland is in the British Isles.
Scotland isn't in the British Isles, its part of Ireland which is an independent country. The Celts have been fighting the Brits for years, except for Northern Ireland that wants to stay part of England. Check out "The Devil's Own" with Brad Pitt, it goes through some of the history. Not a bad movie either.
It's a scotish accent, end of story.
Dave,
Dude Scotland is not part of Ireland, but yes they have been fighting the Brits for independence and after a referendum they agreed for a deal which gives them more powers and their own parliment, but they are still part of the United Kingdom. George Galloway is originally from Glasgow in Scotland and yes he has a Scottish accent.
I shall assume for the sake of sanity that the above comment is some kind of joke.
For those interested in reality;
Scotland, where I was born, raised and lived for nineteen years before coming here to Cambridge, IS part of the British Isles, as is Ireland.
'The British Isles' refers to the collection of Islands to the north of France, the largest of which is Great Britain but which also contains Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Isle of Wighte, Skye, Mull, Lewis, Uist, Arran, Orkney and all the various small islands in the hebredies and around Orkney.
The term 'British Islands' is a term rarely used which refers to Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
Technically there are only two sovereign powers in the British Isles - the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and The Republic of Ireland, though the Isle of Man is a seperate political entity because it is a UK Dependancy, not part of the UK (which is important for tax purposes but little else).
Great Britain, while typically being used synonymously with The United Kingdom refers only to the largest island in the British isles on which reside the nations of England, Scotland and Wales.
Wales, while it is accepted by almost everyone that it houses a unique nationality of people with their own culture, is not a seperate political entity from England technically speaking as it was conquered in 1282 by Edward the 1st of England and has since then been a principality of the English crown. In recent years it has been granted a degree of political autonomy with the creation of the National Assembly for Wales but as this body is without tax raising purposes, it seems to function as little more than a guage of public political opinion. It should be noted that, as a principality, Wales does not appear on the Union Jack, the flag of the United Kingdom.
Scotland on the other hand is a seperate nation from England, though it is a nation joined by a shared monarch and by treaties solidifying political co-dependance, it is neither a principality nor a subject of England but by the terms of Union is in theory an equal partner of the larger nation. Scotland has always been disadvantaged by having England to the south as, lacking any good ports on the west coast until the last two hundred years or so, Scottish merchants were required to either restrict themselves to north sea trade (which is why Scotland has such strong ties historically and linguistically with the Netherlands) or else risk sailing around England and being mercy to the English merchants. In 1651 the English created what they called the natigation acts which forbade trading with foreign merchants. This meant not only that English merchants did not trade at foreign ports but that foreign (i.e; Scottish, Dutch, French) merchants were not allowed to make use of English ports in the Americas or the far east. The navigation act was a major cause of the American revolutionary war and the anglo-dutch war but its importance to Scottish history should not be underestimated either.
When Queen Elizabeth died without an heir, an offer was made to King James VI of Scotland, the son of her first cousin Mary (Queen of Scots), to ascend to the throne of England. Giving the comparative wealth of the two countries James gleefully accepted, becoming James VI and I of Scotland and England (note the order, it is wrong to refer to him as 'James I of England' as no such man existed) and rarely looking back to check how his old Kingdom was doing. One might expect that the union of the crowns would be a good thing for Scotland but if anything it was worse - a lack of King meant domestic mismanagement by opportunists and despite their shared king the English parliament refused to repeal the navigation act, though to accomodate English interests the Scots were barred from engaging in continental trade. Scotland was left unable to trade and at the mercy of those who had rushed to fill the power vaacum left by James' departure.
The following little known (for some reason) incident in Scottish history explains the reasons for the Treaty of Union in 1707: Scottish merchants, rather than be defeated pooled what monies they had remaining and invested in a risky but potentially profitable scheme to create a Scottish colony in the Isthmus of Panama with a view to creating a link between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. No, they weren't going to create a canal, instead they were going to provide haulage of goods from one side to another. The colony, unfortunately, was a complete failure as it was destroyed by the Spanish who claimed the Darien territory as part of New Granada. Scotland was effectively bankrupted by the scheme and had no hope left but to try and get the navigation act repealled. They signed the treaty of Union in 1707 under which the Scottish parliament was dissolved and subsumed into the English parliament in Westminster on the condition that the English repealled the navigation act which they finally did.
What follows, you might say, is history - the Scots expanded the port of Glasgow (my home city) on the west coast which only really had competition with Liverpool as the fastest sea route to America. Glasgow became a rich centre of the tobbacco trade as well as an important part of the textiles industry and money started flowing back into Scotland. The effects of Scotland's superior education system (one of the few good things Calvinist John Knox ever did was set up free schools in every parish - the most advanced, universal education system of its time) was finally felt and Scotland went through the phase in its history known as the Scottish Enlightenment.
Scotland has since regained a good deal of its autonomy with the creation of the Scottish parliament which was voted to have tax raising powers. It controls (to an extent) matters relating to education, healthcare, the environment, tourism, infrastructure, crime and the Scottish legal system which it is worthy to note is seperate from (and arguably superior to) the English system, which notably has a third verdict of 'not proven' which means 'we know you did it but we can't show you did it so we're not going to punish you now but we reserve the right to do so in the future', whereas under the English system you cannot be found guilty for something you have previously been found to be innocent of - meaning if you do not have enough evidence to convict when it goes to trial, they never get punished.
Right... how did this start again? Scotland is not part of Ireland. Historically there are four parts of Ireland; Leinster, Munster, Connaught and Ulster the last of which is mostly comprised of what is currently called 'Northern Ireland'. 'The Devil's Own' is about Ireland, Northern Ireland and - if I remember right, though I've never seen it - is set on Donegal, no? It has NOTHING to do with Scotland.
Galloway does have a Scottish accent and not a british one, because there is no such thing as a 'british accent'. The explanation for that one is long and dull but in general it is suggested you stick to the rule that the epiphet 'British' applies only to institutions, not to individuals (though anyone who is Scottish is a British citizen, the word 'British' refers to the institution of citizenry).
So to sum up:
*Galloway - Scottish accent, not 'British' *Scotland - IS in the British Isles *Scotland does not equal England, but is part of the United Kingdom. *There is no non-geographic entity which can be sensibly referred to as 'Britain' even if it understood to refer to England, Scotland and Wales collectively as the sovereign power is 'Great Britain (the largest island in the British isles) and Northern Ireland'. *Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is in the British Isles, not part of Great Britain, not one of the 'British Islands', not part of the United Kingdom if we are talking about the Republic and does not contain Scotland if we are talking about the island.
For anyone interested in learning more about Scottish history I can heartily recommend Michael Lynch's 'Scotland: A History', Magnus Magnusson (of Mastermind fame)'s 'Scotland: The Story of a Nation' and Arthur Herman's 'The Scottish Enlightenment' as three of the best books for that purpose.
As a Brit what i find depressing is that even though our political system produces brilliant speakers like Galloway, we are still left, after our recent election, with a Government that enjoys a whopping majority even though only 21% voted for them. The vast majority of Brits believe that Blair took us to war for all the wrong reasons and was deceptive, and yet the amount of apathy here is such that Blair was allowed to stroll back into office. So before we start making comments about other democratic countries we need to look to ourselves.
If you want to know who is really in control of the UK you should ask David Icke. He is as close to uncovering to The Truth as anyone has yet come.
I stand corrected. European geography isn't really critical knowledge to us stateside; it is hard to keep track of all the border changes etc with Old and New Europe, and the IRA peace process etc. Chekosluvakia is now like 4 different countries or something, for example.
Are you sure Donegal isn't in Scotland? Or was it in Scotland up until recently until the peace process changed it?
Cheers. Appreciate your research Duncan, you sure know your local history.
Oops. I was thinking of Dundee not Donegal.
anon - The 21% figure is, I assume, taken as a percentage of the whole number of people eligible to vote. I've got to say I don't think its fair to take into account the opinions of those who do not actually bother to go out and vote - they simply do not count if they are too apathetic to try and play a part in the democratic process. The First Past the Post system is pretty awful but it does allow for a certain amount of accountability. The alternative offered are not very attractive; a party list system such as that in Scotland leads to a number of 'party men' (accountable only to the party and likely selected based on obedience) with no clear mandate, a system such as that I prefer whereby you have two MPs elected per ward instead of one it has been suggested would lead to too many conflicts over minor issues with no clear way to resolve the difficulties and a single transferable vote system which is by far the best option on the table has been criticised as being 'too complicated' and it's been said that it would lead to too much tactical voting. To be honest I don't think the stupidity of the British electorate is a very good reason (yes folks, we would make the process more democratic but you guys are just too retarded to be able to deal with it, sorry) but that seems to be the main thinking behind vetoing the options thus far.
On a more realist note; the people in a position to reform the electoral system (the majority party) are always in a position where to do so would lose them seats. Many backbenchers are elected on a very small majority and these would be the ones most likely to lose their seats if reform happened, while those with a vested interest in putting policy through (actively involved in the government - PPS and above) would resent the suggestion of doing something to make that process harder. It was suggested to me by Clare Short (no, really) that the only way she saw of it happening would be if Labour won the election we've just had by such small majority that they had to form a coalition government with the Lib Dems, the primary condition of which would be a proportional representation.
Alex; Icke thinks the world is run by giant lizards. He is mistaken.
Dave; Czechoslovakia has indeed split but it didn't split into four, it split into two; the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The former has a fairly sizeable tourist industry (if you've heard of Prague, that's the capital) and the latter has serious economic problems which will hopefully be redressed to some extent now that it has been welcomed into the European Union.
Czechoslovakia was formed originally after the first world war when a mixture of internal and external forces broke apart the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It consisted of the regions traditionally known as Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia and Ruthenia - the inhabitants of which I am given to understand were 'mostly czech, some germans', 'mostly czech, some hungarians', 'mostly slovak' and 'mix of slovak and hungarian'. Czechs and Slovaks for the record are seperate ethnic groups. Unfortunately for Czechoslovakia the rise of German fascism brought with it demands for the Sudetenland (regions formerly part of Germany, taken by the new country at the end of WW1 and which contained majority German populations). Eventually Hitler concluded an agreement with the Hungarians whereby the Germans would take the Sudetenland and the Hungarians southern Slovakia and Ruthenia. This was known as the Munich agreement and was one of the first major obviously non-democratic territorial expansions made by Nazi Germany. When asked about it then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told a rather astonished british press that Czechoslovakia was "a far away country of which we know nothing" a description more befitting the inhabitants of the British Provinces in northern india than a country in the heart of europe facing anihilation. Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia in 1939. After the war is was controlled by the Russians until the people revolted in the velvet revolution of 1989 and finally the country split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993.
You might be thinking of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was also a former province of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and which for a while existed as a set of six states and two autonomous provinces based on a soviet model before breaking down in 2003. It now exists as five countries; Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Republic of Macedonia and Slovenia.
Scotland, just to reassure you, has not undergone any significant border changes since the English took Berwick in 1296, with the possible exception of the acquisition of various Islands (Skye, Lewis, Uist, Orkney, Shetland) from regional warlords (the King of the Northern Isles - Leod or MacLeod) and/or the King of Norway.
WAAAHHHH!! I won't get Quicktime because it works too well and all the time.
I like my crappy Pee Cee with it's crappy multimedia. It brings me a sense of adventure. Sometimes it works and most times it does not. It is people like these that make up the stupid half of America.
This Galloway fellow KICKS ASS!!! I can only wish we had some Democrats that are well prepared and skillfull in the ART of BULLSHIT! This is how you deal with these scumbag neo-cons.
these neo-cons can lie with a straight face and say shit like we know for certain that there are weapons of Mass destruction and crap like clear skies initiative and tax cuts. but what they mean is they knew there were no weapons and that's why they invaded, they know that they willa loow more pollution in the air and they know the tax cuts are for the wealthy only.
I say screw them they are palying for all the marbles and so should we.
Galloway is popularly regarded as a bit of a charlatan and a complete opportunist.
Fortunately bereft of any responisiblity, his is a very shallow applause seeking approach to TV politics.
If it were not for the fact that the majority of the ministers in the current labour government are shockingly inept and lacking of the skills that are demanded of even a regional manager in Kinkos, Galloway would be relegated to the shabby world of reflex-pop politics where he belongs.
It is nauseating that he gets an audience, let alone that people are impressed with him. That is the fault of the extremely low quality of the field.
I don't give a shit about what how he's viewed back in England, what matters is how he twarted an obviously incompetent right wing senator in hearing where you're, from what I understand, supposed to bow down and take it up the a$$ rather than be defiant.
Sorry for spelling mistakes, had a little too much to drink, but my point still stands ffs!
The whole thing did make the US system look particularly weak and pathetic. Galloway, though enjoying (and milking) a brief flash of public approval in the UK, is a shabby politician.
How are things so crap in the US? Has everyone been asleep or is stupidity in vogue these days?
Well, I don't know where you stand on Iraq, but that he's so anti-war is in itself a positive trait about the man.
He was just lucky to have found an audience and a TV camera (by "virtue" of being a fraud suspect).
Just under half the US and over 95% of the planet have exactly the same opinion as he does.
But very few of those foreigners, bar one so far, have been able to speak their mind to the actual senators in a so confrontational manner as this.
Dane:
Possibly for lack of opportunity. GG was given the opportunity due to being wrongly accused of oil trading. Any other foriegn politicians not brought in by the US government and accusing the US have/will be dismissed as 'outsiders' and 'liberal idiots with no idea what they are talking about.' I feel the only politicians who have the clout to sway/call out US gov't officials are anti-war British MP's. First, because they are citizens of America's closest ally, instantly gaining an ear, and secondly, because they have the rhetoric skills and verbal fludity to do so. Non-naitive English speakers, good as they may be are simply don't convey the point sharply enough. And as we all know, in politics, sadly, image is everything.
As a person who has lived in both the US and the UK, I feel that the UK's system is far better due to the flow of ideas and ability to question the party in power. For example, first, the Prime Minister's question time (popularised by CSPAN), second, the fact that all three major party candiates were interviewed by Jeremy Paxman before the recent election. They had no knowledge of the questions prior and even the audience memebers were allowed to ask questions. If George Bush were interview by Paxman ... well ... i'll let you think about that one. Instead of living in this closed off world, held unaccountable for his actions, he were able to be confronted it may change things.
But, the Democrats had their chance, the UK still went to war, and Blair was re-elected. So maybe I should just give up hope.
Keep posting one-good-move, you're a shining light in this world that is growing ever darker.
Best,
James
http://counterpunch.org/goff05192005.html
George Galloway certainly speaks well, and I admire the way he stood up against the senate, but he is not without fault himself. The way he smeered Oona King's name through the dirt in order to get elected to his constituency is despicble, especially when he'll never be there for the people in his constituency, like she was, every Saturday in surgery hours, was disgraceful. Although he cannot be proved guilty of any of these crimes, he has been linked to enough shady dealings throughout his political career, way before the senate brought this up, to merit being wary of him in the future
The truth of the George Galloway affair is this...
If there were the slightest truth in the various, repeated and ongoing bribery allegations against George Galloway, we Brits would have had him locked up in jail. This BS has been going on for years...
He is simply being attacked because he is a prominent and very outspoken critic of the Iraq sanctions and the illegal Iraq war.
Regarding Galloway's campaign organisation, The Miriam Appeal, the UK's Charities Commission have no business to look at it since it was not a charity and he has never pretended it was. The Miriam Appeal was a political campaign opposing the genocidal sanctions against Iraq.
The UK's Charities Commission can only investigate charities and any suspected criminals who pretend to be running charities. The Charities Commission only looked at the issue to see if the Miriam Appeal broke UK Charity law because Blairite Apparatchiks in the UK government twisted their arm. They found Nada, Nix, Nought, Nothing. Nor will they find anything else. Nor will anyone else.
The Jordanian businessman Fawaz Zuraiqat, who donated to the Miriam Appeal was the second largest donor. The crown prince of Saudi Arabia was the third largest donor and Sheik Zayid, the ruler of the United Arab Emirates was largest donor. All this information was on the Miriam Appeal Web site before during the sanctions and before the Iraq war. If any of this had been illegal, the UK authorities would have prosecuted George Galloway years ago. It is all.. "a pack of lies". Galloway "was not then, nor was he ever" on the take for oil money and actually Blair and the NeoConNazis know this... Or, like I said... he would be in jail.
In a sense all the money donated to Galloway's campaign against sanctions that was obtained from middle east sources is money from oil, either directly or indirectly. Fawaz Zuraiqat did business in Iraq which must have derived any income from its relation to business activity with income from oil or business doing trade that depended on oil revenues because I am not aware of any other trade that Iraq does other than oil trade.
Fawaz Zuraiqat is still doing business in Iraq. As before his clients include many major international companies, only now his clients include US companies. Before the invasion it was US, Jordanian and Turkish companies that did most of the oil kickbacks to Sadam and the US government knew about it but kept quiet.
They can't even forge decent documents. Where Galloway's name appears, it is in parentheses in another font alongside other information on the document which is entirely in a different font... Jeeze... Which sort of assumes that the Iraqis would not try to conceal such a thing, which maybe they did or maybe someone was sure that they had and that that therefore it would be ok or at least convenient to add his name to the documents because .. well they must have, so... but he could not find the right type writer so... this one will do etc. Gimme a break...
Mother of all Smoke Screens... YES that is what this is... The real issue is the theft and diversion of billions and billions during the invasion and after and this is still going on. Including, as Galloway mentioned shipping out who knows how much oil completely unmetered.
For those with a long memory, looting Iraqi oil was how Sadam was provoked into taking the bait to invade Kuwait. There was a oil production system of drilled wells installed in Kuwait by US companies near the Iraqi border that actually slant drilled under the border into an Iraqi oil field and pumped vast quantities of oil which was then shipped out and sold by the Kuwaitis.
The gutter press in the UK thought they had found the "oil for food kickbacked loot" last year when they "revealed" that George Galloway had built a luxury villa in Spain but it turns out that it is a modest holiday cottage in Portugal which he bought on a mortgage paid for by his income from journalism.
As for the US/UK war criminals... be assured that history and justice will catch up with them...
The main charge at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal was "making aggressive war". Bush and Blair etc. have done this twice. I expect them to do it again and again until they and the forces they represent are deprived of power. I predict that this will happen when they start using nuclear weapons and other WMD.
I expect that they will attack Iran next. Quite soon.
By the way, Galloway was elected for the constituency of Bethnall Bow and Green in Glasgow, not London (quite a large difference there of about 200 miles; well, it's large in British terms). It does have a high muslim population though.
"Bethnal Green and Bow...is centred on the northern part of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, taking in much of Bethnal Green, Bow and Stepney. It includes much of the traditional East End, the Tower of London and Brick Lane." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BethnalGreenandBow(UKParliamentconstituency))
..just by the way.
Glasgow, 200 miles north of London ?!?!? I wish it were! I would go there every weekend!! LOL!!