Just go hear what he says. Your life will never be the same. Astounding.
JR, thanks for the link.
Galloway must be okay, as Charles Johnson sees him as the Antichrist. Today he rips Galloway to shreds, although he can’t find anything wrong with the speech and instead goes back to old posts he’s written about Galloway, hissing and cursing at the liberal media and Daily Kos all along the way, and never addressing the issues.
Update: LGF Watch raises the same point about our friend Mr. Johnson:
But it’s interesting, isn’t it, that while Charles has three threads on the hearing, calling Galloway “pro-terrorist” and “anti-semitic”, HE DOESN’T ACTUALLY SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE HEARING ITSELF. What is Charles afraid of? That his ignorance about the oil-for-food programme and the allegations surrounding it will show him up for the ex-hippy bird brain demagogue that he is?
Just asking…
1
By JR
You’re welcome. I got that while painting and listening to NPR at the same time.
=)
May 18, 2005 @ 1:17 pm | Comment
2
By lirelou
While I greatly enjoyed watching Galloway take on the senate committee and putting paid to the Bush adminsitration, theater is one thing, and a trial another. Lets see what the evidence says.
May 18, 2005 @ 5:58 pm | Comment
3
By richard
Well, the evidence about the WMD’s in now pretty incontrovertible according to our own government reports. And the latest reports show the biggest perpetrator in the oil for food scandalette was the US. I’m willing to reconsider, but now, years after our invasion of Iraq, it’s evident to me that Galloway raises some pretty glaring truths.
May 18, 2005 @ 7:23 pm | Comment
4
By Keir
While I was overjoyed at his election win over the incumbent “Blair babe”, I was exceedingly dismayed about the immediate media response. Paxman asked if he was “proud” at his defeat of the only Black female MP, and another asked about the alleged problems within his marriage. I’m impressed that he has the ability to remain as composed and eloquent as he has been up to now!
May 18, 2005 @ 7:29 pm | Comment
5
By Conrad
Richard:
Galloway is a vile, loathsome creature. He’s an apologist for dictators and terrorists. He is virulently anti-Israeli and has a long history of greed and financial misconduct. He professed his admiration of Saddam. He urged British troops to disobey orders and refuse to fight in Iraq. He excused the 9/11 attacks. He called for all US and UK soldiers to be tried as war criminals. He’s previously used a sick child’s charity as his personal piggy bank. Hell, the British Labour Party expelled him and US Senate Democrats joined the Republicans in finding evidence of his acceptance of illicit money from Saddam Hussein. In the words of his former constuency newspaper The Scotsman ( http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=540962005 ):
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend and you do yourself a real disservice by supporting this dispicable cretin.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7665
May 18, 2005 @ 10:37 pm | Comment
6
By pete
Cretin, possibly, but is he crazy, going into someone else’s house and criticizing, upbraiding and maybe lying – to the most powerful legislators in the world? A strange mix. If what Conrad says is correct it is a wonder he would be called to testify at all.
May 18, 2005 @ 11:04 pm | Comment
7
By Conrad
First, because he’s a publicity crazed, attention seeking showboat.
Second, because, in practice, I can’t see a sitting member of the British Parliment being charged with lying to the US Congress. PR-wise, it wouldn’t play very well at all internationally.
Third, even if charged, I can’t imagine Britain actually extraditing him if he told the Senate/prosecutors to ‘get stuffed.’
Fourth, because, even if charged, given the nature of the evidence, chain of custody, identity and location of witnesses, etc., I can’t see it being proven that he lied beyond a reasonable doubt.
Testifying was, in reality, a pretty high publicity low risk undertaking for him.
May 19, 2005 @ 1:12 am | Comment
8
By Michael
Conrad:
The article you link to (from 2003) includes claims from the Christian Science
Monitor based on forged documents that have been discredited, and that it
itself has retracted:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7665
If Galloway is really as dodgy as some people claim he is — apparently based
on his anti-war views and little else — it is very surprising that no one
has managed to turn up any convincing evidence yet!
(And frankly, even if he is a monumental prick as to character, in terms of
his assessment of Iraq’s disarmament before the war he appears to be more
reliable than, say, Colin Powell).
May 19, 2005 @ 2:31 am | Comment
9
By Michael
Here is the retraction from the Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0620/p01s03-woiq.html
When someone is accused of something, they deny it, and the accusations turn
out to be based on forged documents, that would tend to make you somewhat
suspicious of future accusations along the same lines.
You would think that bloggers would be rushing to investigate forgeries like
this; god knows Rathergate got enough coverage…
One last thing: if Galloway *did* receive millions of dollars from Saddam,
does that mean that his claim of Iraqi disarmament was false? If members of
the American government *did* receive millions of dollars from companies that
would profit from war with Iraq, does that mean that their claims of Iraqi
weapons were true? Worth a thought.
May 19, 2005 @ 2:38 am | Comment
10
By Michael
Heh, one truly last comment: it is instructive to compare the reception given to Galloway with that given to Chalabi.
One man is a democratically elected member of the British parliament, the other man is a convicted bank robber (!) on the run from Jordanian authorities.
The former is interrogated, the latter is given a seat of honour at a state of
the union address. Of course, Chalabi was *pro*-war; and why not, considering
that he was a prime candidate for Saddam’s replacement, at least back in 2003
before US was pressured into allowing their puppet government to hold
elections. Ooops. Oh well, at least the US can persuade the King of Jordan to
grant him a pardon, save embarrassment all round.
The enemy of my enemy indeed. Who is Galloway the enemy of? Those who wanted
war in Iraq above all else. That alone is not sufficient to make him a vile
and/or loathsome creature.
May 19, 2005 @ 3:52 am | Comment
11
By richard
The Labour Party expelled him because of his outspokenness against the Iraq War, which certainly did push the envelope. But in retrospect, he was right on most counts and I wish more had listened, including myself. I despise Galloway’s standing up for Saddam Hussein and for supporting the USSR. Chances are he would have supported Mao. But his points at the hearing were well taken and well said. And Michael is quite right about the forged documents tying him to the Oil for Food scandalette. Go here and scroll down to “Oil for Food.” He is the victim of your typical far-right smear campaign, with Charles Johnson banging the drum loudest, as always.
May 19, 2005 @ 11:43 am | Comment
12
By Keir
Wish there had been more cretins like Galloway who was brave enough to stick his neck out against the illegal war and the sanctions that led to the deaths of millions for over a decade before that. I don’t know about others here but in my country we have freedom of speech and if one dares tell soldiers to disobey illegal orders, it is accepted (otherwise what was the point with those trials in Nurenburg?). Indeed, the British army is being hauled up to the International Court at the Hague to answer charges of war crimes. Guess they should have listened to this cretin, no? After all, this “loathsome creature” is an elected member of Parliament, and has just done so again against all the forces waged against him. I wish to know the moral qualifications of those answerable to none but themselves who denounce him so vociferously without bothering to at least offer any explanation. As it said in the movie I was deeply priviledged to go to the premiere of last night at midnight, only a Sith thinks in absolutes.”
Argumentum ad hominem, in this case Galloway, is far easier than having to trouble oneself in what he actually says. “He is virulently anti-Israel”, is he? And your point is…..? In my class of teenagers I stress that when writing an essay with simplistic ‘arguments’ like that, it is meaningless without bothering to explain using evidence and a concluding sentence showing how it answers the point of the essay. If British soldiers have committed crimes against Iraqis, should they not be tried? If families are grieving for sons needlessly dead in the service of one whio sent them on false pretences, is Galloway not to be commended for championing their right to seek justice? To slander someone for using a charity as his “personal piggy bank” without providing a single shred of evidence to back it up is reprehensible. For all those who do not know this individual (who I’m not in thrall of) but have only such Coulter-like opinions to guide them, I point out this: He has regularly sued for libel and has always won, including £150,000 in libel damages and £1.2m in costs against the Daily Telegraph. Those who repeat such claims against him do so without any worry of having to defend them in a court of law but hide instead under a veil of anonymity. I submit that that is the FIRST refuge of a scoundrel.
May 19, 2005 @ 9:29 pm | Comment
13
By brian
Galloway is a genius and he triumphed. Here’s the proof.
May 19, 2005 @ 9:30 pm | Comment