Galloway speaks to the media after arriving Monday at Dulles International Airport outside Washington.
Posted on 05/17/2005 4:37:17 AM PDT by Libloather
British Parliament member to face oil-for-food accusers
From Phil Hirschkorn
CNN
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 Posted: 0746 GMT (1546 HKT)
Galloway speaks to the media after arriving Monday at Dulles International Airport outside Washington.
(CNN) -- British Parliament member George Galloway will face his accusers when he testifies Tuesday before a U.S. Senate panel probing the U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq.
Galloway is due to appear before the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which stated in a report last week that deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein granted him vouchers for 20 million barrels of oil between 2000 and 2003.
**SNIP**
Galloway is scheduled to appear late Tuesday morning in Washington as the final witness in a hearing that begins at 9:30 a.m. ET.
**SNIP**
Galloway, 51, who met with Saddam several times in the 1990s, has been a leading critic of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his alliance with U.S. President George Bush in the war with Iraq. He was re-elected on an anti-war platform earlier this month.
**SNIP**
A new report from Democrats on the Senate subcommittee concludes the United States ended up with a majority of the oil lifted from Iraq after vendors paid illicit surcharges of 10 cents to 30 cents a barrel to Saddam.
**SNIP**
The Democratic report found Bayoil shipped a lot of oil allocated to a company called Italtech run by Augusto Giangrandi, a sometime Florida resident with dual Chilean-Italian citizenship.
(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...
No doubt.
Given Coleman's State, and his obvious political savvy, I would think it odd that he would just be out there on a fishing expedition. He obviously was not play out so sort of media grandstanding.
My guess is that there is something very real to his findings. Even Levin was on a short leash.
Galloway might have just wanted to have a face to face with his co-religionists over here to get some sort of idea what he was in for.
Heard at the top of this hour on MSNBC, their first report of the news round up was on this story.
The anchorette started with "Damning evidence today" and then went on to summarize and threw to male reporter who filled in some information.
Yes, they played some of Galloway's histrionic performance, but it seemed to me his emphatic denials rang hollow. They played the most clintonesque part; the "I've never seen a barrel of oil; I've never sold a barrel of oil". I don't think it's wishful thinking on my part that playing that on the heels of reporting on the documentation did not paint Galloway as even close to in the clear.
They also reported how he was booted from the Labor Party and just won election under his newly fashioned party.
If I may interject myself in your post to another...several of us here today have been asking the same question you just did.
Why?
If he was sworn in and he lied ... That is a crime
Who is "hosting" Galloway up on the Hill today? Anybody know?
You always give the guy a chance to explain himself before you kick his ass. This was Galloway's opportunity to explain himself in the face of overwhelming evidence. He did nothing of the sort, and only went on the attack because that is all he could do. He could not answer the charges at all.
Now, when Galloway is indicted and convicted, all he will have is his attacks. The left can have their talking points, but in the end they wont mean anything to the Judge and Jury.
I thought Coleman was fantastic. He did not rise to the bait and turn the thing into a screaming match. The witness did not answer the questions or present any evidence in his defense. Coleman knows now that he can proceed and not be blindsided by any hidden exculpatory information.
Galloway is toast.
Coleman has been holding hearings.
I do believe when the Committee released the documents last week naming Galloway and confirming the original charges reported against him, that Galloway volunteered to storm over here and confront the Committee. I figured it for a strategy, not speaking to his innocence as I believe the documentation and testimony of others incriminating him.
But you can be sure Coleman's investigation will go on, Galloway or no Galloway being here.
I'm not sure how many here are aware that there are five Congressional investigations. Four in addition to Coleman's.
There is also a DOJ investigation, a Manhattan DA investigation, the UN investigation that despite itself has rendered valuable information, and the Iraqis want to investigate though I'm not sure what status they are at. In addition, I am confident that Galloway will again be probed via the British authorities.
I've not heard that. His wife is a cousin of Arafat. I doubt she'll spill any beans.
I think you're right. I just posted before seeing your comments that my recollection was that Galloway decided to appear after the documentation was released last week.
He was sworn in.
I am 100% sure---I saw it on my internet feed that was lagging behind the LIVE hearing and I posted it somewhere up thread (just as a point of info---I realize a fast moving live thread means not being able to read all posts).
BTW, that reminds me---I saw Galloway on CNN at the tail end of an interview after the hearings had recessed. The reporter said some Congressmen said Galloway may be facing perjury charges and Galloway laughed and said the liars are on the other side.
Personally, I doubt he technically committed perjury. The man out parses Clinton.
But I have no doubt his testimony can and will be used against him.
Well .. Galloway is gonna have some troubles there
Thanks for confirming that .. I didn't hear because of my whinny daughter
the problem is that there is no way that a British court would allow him to be extradited to the US for perjury in a Senate committee hearing which has no authority under British law
We might not be about to prosecute
But I believe the World Court can go after Galloway
I'm not sure if Coleman baited him.
The Committee released the documentation and accused Galloway of being on the take.
Next I heard, Galloway announced his intention to appear before Congress to refute the charges. I had not heard he'd been called.
Perhaps it was bait! The French man (Pascua?) denied the charges yesterday. He was named, too.
BTW, to all, I recommend this article about today's hearing--it's one of the better ones:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aJYUhDfQPWgE&refer=top_world_news
I'll go see if I can find something from last week to firm up the sequence of events.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.