A pox upon George Galloway

[Ted Striker]

Son, I've already HAD it.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

While I feel dirty being defended by NYE, the fact remains that he not only avoided as well as he could the questions asked of him by Senator Levin, he chose to attack the United States whenever he could. Basically, his defense was "but they're worser."

Now, probably everyone here knows that I'm as liberal as they come (although, unfortunately, I haven't been as yet able to have a coherent discussion since I've often been drunk while discussing), this man is no different to me than any other profiteer.

What true Socialist would turn the other way in order to accept money possibly derived from the exploitation of the poor? What true Socialist would call someone who is a high-ranking member of a totalitarian regime with a dispicable human rights record a "dear, dear friend"?

[Ted Striker]

Donald Rumsfeld?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

Is the life of the average Iraqi better or worse since Saddam has been removed from power?

So, you're arguing that no matter what this man did, as well as those who he defended through evasion of questions, because we heavily ****ed up the war, Galloway's actions deserve no punishment?

Ironic since Bush:

1) Ignored the UN

and

2) Subverted the will of the international community.


You know, on top of that whole, lying to his own people to invade another nation thing.

...didn't you just pwn yourself? Basically, you're saying that since Bush and Galloway did both, that removes Galloway's guilt?

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Donald Rumsfeld?

You know I loathe Donald Rumsfeld, who is in my mind a war criminal.

[Ted Striker]

I do think his points regarding the US were relevent.

It shows where his intentions and heart were with Saddam Hussein, as he stated several times.

It also showed the lack of credibility his persecutors had.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
So, you're arguing that no matter what this man did, as well as those who he defended through evasion of questions, because we heavily ****ed up the war, Galloway's actions deserve no punishment?

Nobody has proven he has done anything wrong.

...didn't you just pwn yourself? Basically, you're saying that since Bush and Galloway did both, that removes Galloway's guilt?

Nobody has proven he has done anything wrong.


Get something concrete besides his name on a piece of paper and then we'll talk.

[Agathon]

By "pwnage" I assume you mean his complete lack of answering fully any questions posed of him, and, in fact, challenging a Senator who opposed the war that he supported it, only changing to "the US senate" when he discovered the lack of facts.

What?

You guys are insane. Galloway has already forced retractions from two newspapers about this and has won a substantial libel case against the Daily Telegraph. There is absolutely no evidence that he profited personally in any way from his charities, and the documents produced as evidence that he had done so have all proved to be forgeries when examined.

What appears to have happened is that one of the contributors to Galloway's charity, in a minority of his business dealings, had been paying off Saddam. There is no evidence that Galloway knew about of this, and in truth no reason for him to really care. Why should he care if some backroom deal enables this man to give lavishly to a charity that helps ordinary Iraqis.

Did the charity misappropriate funds? No. Every last penny has been accounted for.

There is no evidence against Galloway. He is right to point that out. All you have is rumour and innuendo.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I do think his points regarding the US were relevent.

How? If I were brought before the Senate to answer questions about my business taking millions from an enemy, I could defend myself by pointing out how bad the US was? That wouldn't hold muster in any court.

It shows where his intentions and heart were with Saddam Hussein, as he stated several times.

And this is something positive to you?

It also showed the lack of credibility his persecutors had.

You mean prosecutors? Because if you actually mean persecutors, you're making a man who profited from a program he denounced as a martyr?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Agathon

By "pwnage" I assume you mean his complete lack of answering fully any questions posed of him, and, in fact, challenging a Senator who opposed the war that he supported it, only changing to "the US senate" when he discovered the lack of facts.

What?

You guys are insane. Galloway has already forced retractions from two newspapers about this and has won a substantial libel case against the Daily Telegraph. There is absolutely no evidence that he profited personally in any way from his charities, and the documents produced as evidence that he had done so have all proved to be forgeries when examined.

What appears to have happened is that one of the contributors to Galloway's charity, in a minority of his business dealings, had been paying off Saddam. There is no evidence that Galloway knew about of this, and in truth no reason for him to really care. Why should he care if some backroom deal enables this man to give lavishly to a charity that helps ordinary Iraqis.

Did the charity misappropriate funds? No. Every last penny has been accounted for.

There is no evidence against Galloway. He is right to point that out. All you have is rumour and innuendo.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
How? If I were brought before the Senate to answer questions about my business taking millions from an enemy, I could defend myself by pointing out how bad the US was? That wouldn't hold muster in any court.

If the court is corrupt to begin with...

And this is something positive to you?

He stated time and time again (did they not play that on C-SPAN?) that he opposed Saddam's regime.

You mean prosecutors? Because if you actually mean persecutors, you're making a man who profited from a program he denounced as a martyr?

Nobody has proven he has done anything wrong.

[Agathon]

While I feel dirty being defended by NYE, the fact remains that he not only avoided as well as he could the questions asked of him by Senator Levin, he chose to attack the United States whenever he could. Basically, his defense was "but they're worser."

He avoided the last line of questioning because it was irrelevant. Levin asked him if he would have been troubled if he had known that his second largest donator had been paying kickbacks to Saddam Hussein.

If I collected money for charity in my neighbourhood and six months later someone told me that the largest donation was actually from a crack dealer, what am I supposed to do? There's nothing I can do about it, and in fact some good came out of it since the crack money actually ended up helping people instead of being spent on bling.

Levin was trying to make Galloway look as if he felt guilty about something that Galloway should feel no guilt over. It was a crude rhetorical trick and Galloway did not fall for it.

Only right wing loons believe that the senators didn't take a beating from Galloway. The consensus among normal people is that they were shamed. After all they had planned to expose this evil man and ended up running for cover after only 15 minutes.

That last fact is enough to prove you wrong. They ran. I'm sure Galloway would have enjoyed another hour of putting them to the sword, but there you go.

[Ted Striker]

Galloway was smart not to play Coleman's game

He knows US politics and media are built on 1 second soundbites

The media would play the 1-3 seconds of him saying "yes" or "no" out of context and then ignore the rest of his case.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

He could have helped his case by not evading every question asked of him. He has the absolute right (as Sen. Levin stated) to not only state his opinion on the war and the program, but also ask for the original documents, but the supposed "tongue-lashing" he gave to the committee was nothing more than a show. Just because he hated the program and he hated the war isn't a justifiable defense that he didn't profit.

Thankfully, his fund is coming under a thorough investigation again (and, apparently, his win in Parliament is being checked because there were 300 duplicate names on ballots in Bethnal Green and Bow).

Of course, he is innocent until proven guilty. But evading questions does not help his chances of NOT being proven guilty.

[Agathon]

EF.

If I was Galloway, I probably wouldn't have done much differently. They tried to ambush him with documents that he'd never seen before. In no normal court would that be accepted procedure. You can't force someone to answer questions under those circumstances – that's ridiculous.

And stop getting at him. He won a major libel case in the British courts. It would be hard to find a court less friendly to someone like Galloway in any western country. He would have got a fairer trial in the US – British courts are notoriously craven.

Yet, he won an overwhelming victory against the Telegraph. Even I was surprised at the scale of his win.

The only reasonable conclusion is that they have nothing that will stick. Maybe he is bent, but no-one has come close to providing anything near showing that or indeed any wrongdoing by Galloway.

[Ted Striker]