Originally posted by AmauroteI think they expected him to cringe or fawn as most Americans do before a sub-committee. He came out blasting, shot their case to bits and put in a couple of good attacks of his own. I can think of a pretty good reason they appeared to be an ill-prepared McCarthyite kangaroo court - the same sort of mindless hysteria prevails now as in the fifties.
I was a bit puzzled by the whole circus: love him or hate him, Galloway is the perfect demagogue when he has a crowd to play to, and the Sub-Committee appeared to completely underestimate him by their comportment in the media prior to inviting him. I don't know much about Sen. Norm Coleman, but House Sub-Committees are regarded with some envy over here for ...[text shortened]... parency, so seeing one behave like an ill-prepared McCarthyite kangaroo court was very peculiar.
If there is a case against him, perhaps the considerable resources of the US and UK government would have found some evidence of transactions by now. Otherwise the accusation belongs in the WMD basket as a proven lie.
Originally posted by AmauroteI'm not sure what the point was in having Galloway appear. The Oil for Food program was a mega-fraud and Congress seems to have plenty of facts to back that up. Whether or not they can prove Galloway was involved in criminal activities is another matter. My gut feeling from watching him is that he is a guy who would do anything for a dollar. Perhaps the point in having him answer questions was just to present him to the American people.
I was a bit puzzled by the whole circus: love him or hate him, Galloway is the perfect demagogue when he has a crowd to play to, and the Sub-Committee appeared to completely underestimate him by their comportment in the media prior to inviting him. I don't know much about Sen. Norm Coleman, but House Sub-Committees are regarded with some envy over here for ...[text shortened]... parency, so seeing one behave like an ill-prepared McCarthyite kangaroo court was very peculiar.
2 edits
Originally posted by DelmerAnd a gut feeling is all you need to shoot a man or invade a country these days - little things like facts and evidence don't seem to matter in the United States
I'm not sure what the point was in having Galloway appear. The Oil for Food program was a mega-fraud and Congress seems to have plenty of facts to back that up. Whether or not they can prove Galloway was involved in criminal activities is a ...[text shortened]... answer questions was just to present him to the American people.
Originally posted by steerpikeWell, Red, "My gut feeling from watching him is that he is a guy who would do anything for a dollar." Just my personal feeling. Seems like a man interested in facts, such as yourself, would hesitate a bit before making the unwarrented assumption that anyone wants to shoot him or invade the UK.
I was addig to my post your words about gut feelings - which were missign due to text shortening.
Originally posted by DelmerWell down in England we do say that if a Scotsman dropped a penny, he would catch it on the back of his neck. 😉
Well, Red, "My gut feeling from watching him is that he is a guy who would do anything for a dollar." Just my personal feeling. Seems like a man interested in facts, such as yourself, would hesitate a bit before making the unwarrented assumption that anyone wants to shoot him or invade the UK.
Joking aside his Repect party policies, which you can find here:-
http://www.respectcoalition.com/index.php?sec=1
seem very much old labour. Geared around socialism & trade unionism. Whilst one can't discount that some people have indeed grown rich though missuse of similiar types of organisation. I would say that the underlying principles would indicate that he would not do anything for a dollar. Perhaps Redmike can give us his opinion
Originally posted by Jay PeateaI've known George G for over 20 years.
Well down in England we do say that if a Scotsman dropped a penny, he would catch it on the back of his neck. 😉
Joking aside his Repect party policies, which you can find here:-
http://www.respectcoalition.com/index.php?sec=1
seem very much old labour. Geared around socialism & trade unionism. Whilst one can't discount that some people have ind ...[text shortened]... indicate that he would not do anything for a dollar. Perhaps Redmike can give us his opinion
I've not seen much of him in the last 5 years or so, since we're in different parties now (I left the laboour party about 8 years ago, GG got kicked out last year).
I can safely say that he's not in politics for the money. He's a talented, clever guy - if he'd kept his nose clean he'd be a cabinet minister by now.
He makes plenty of money suing newspapers as well.
In terms of the Respect party, while George is the 'front man', they are really a broad, loose coalition of left groups, elements of the anti-war movement and some unions.
Originally posted by Jay PeateaLOL! Thanks, I'll look at the site.
Well down in England we do say that if a Scotsman dropped a penny, he would catch it on the back of his neck. 😉
Joking aside his Repect party policies, which you can find here:-
http://www.respectcoalition.com/index.php?sec=1
seem very much old labour. Geared around socialism & trade unionism. Whilst one can't discount that some people have ind ...[text shortened]... indicate that he would not do anything for a dollar. Perhaps Redmike can give us his opinion
Originally posted by DelmerHow many Iraqi civilians have been shot because an American had a gut feeling they were threatening?
Well, Red, "My gut feeling from watching him is that he is a guy who would do anything for a dollar." Just my personal feeling. Seems like a man interested in facts, such as yourself, would hesitate a bit before making the unwarrented assumption that anyone wants to shoot him or invade the UK.
1 edit
Originally posted by DelmerThat may well be right, but what struck a lot of commentators here was how nugatory the whole process was: the senators didn't ask him any questions he hadn't answered already in libel cases, they simply over-played an ill-researched hand and made themselves look asinine. The only interesting revelation was the question from Mr Levin asking him whether he had any sense of unease about taking money from a source like Zuraikat, which he was naturally able to deflect onto the US political system but which was nonetheless demonstrated that he is not particularly bothered about sources.
My gut feeling from watching him is that he is a guy who would do anything for a dollar. Perhaps the point in having him answer questions was just to present him to the American people.
I don't believe George Galloway is corrupt, at least not on this scale. I think he's quite naive and at times irresponsible and unquestioning in the alliances and friendships that he makes (forget Tariq Azis, he was even chatting matily to Jorg Haider a few months ago). What interests me is who made and planted these forgeries, and what was their agenda?
2 edits
Originally posted by DelmerRhetorical question. It is only when a Italian rescuing a hostage get blown away it even makeas the news.
I give up, Red. How many? (You're beginning to sound like Stang.)
Actually it wasn't fair to put George Galloway up against a light weight like Coleman. A better match would be to debate the Iraq occupation man to man with George W Bush. The batle of the Georges - I am sure Galloway would not be frightened to take to the ring but what about the hero of the Alabama National Guard?
Galloway was good with Paxman after he won the seat from Labour.
Apparently some of the evidence that was being used when the story initially broke was proved to be forged.
eg documents supposed to be 10 years old were shown to be only a few months old with dating analysis; there were language problems too, it wasn't the correct Iraqii bureaucratic style.
I have come round to George. I watched a documentary about his campaign for the Bangladeshi vote; he was very personable. They were trying to coax this older gentleman into voting for Respect and the man was a little agitated, so George told the documentary crew to sod off, and asked the man if he could speak to him man-to-man for a minute.
He does have a rather nefarious history. I remember he promised to speak out against human rights abuses in Bangladesh prior to a visit there, but when he actually went out he said it wasn't his place to make comments about another country's domestic issues; instead he let himself be wined and dined.
Fearless crusader for freedom and justice he aint.
Originally posted by steerpikeAnother rhetorical question, I assume. When Mr. Galloway rises to Prime Minister status perhaps he can arrange a debate with the President of the USA.
Rhetorical question. It is only when a Italian rescuing a hostage get blown away it even makeas the news.
Actually it wasn't fair to put George Galloway up against a light weight like Coleman. A better match would be to debate the Iraq occupation man to man with George W Bush. The batle of the Georges - I am sure Galloway would not be frightened to take to the ring but what about the hero of the Alabama National Guard?