Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(Live Thread) British Parliament member George Galloway to face oil-for-food accusers (Live Thread)
CNN.com ^ | 5/17/05 | Phil Hirschkorn

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: accusers; alfaghi; alfagih; alfaqhi; alfaqih; british; face; food; galloway; george; kook; member; oil; oilforfood; panel; parliament; saadalfaghi; saadalfagih; saadalfaqhi; saadalfaqih; senate; us; ussenate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740741-760761-780 ... 801-811 next last
To: Miss Marple

No doubt.


741 posted on 05/17/2005 12:18:24 PM PDT by Howlin (North Carolina, where beer kegs are registered and illegal aliens run free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 740 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I thought Galloway forced the issue, in effect invited himself via a Democrat proxie. Could be wrong.

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.

742 posted on 05/17/2005 12:21:55 PM PDT by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 740 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple; Howlin; Mo1

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.


743 posted on 05/17/2005 12:22:35 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 740 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Why did Norm have Galloway on today?

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?

744 posted on 05/17/2005 12:22:38 PM PDT by processing please hold (Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 740 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth
It is more Republican "brilliance" and PR.
745 posted on 05/17/2005 12:23:02 PM PDT by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 726 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Was Galloway sworn in .. or he just give his verson of events ????

If he was sworn in and he lied ... That is a crime

746 posted on 05/17/2005 12:23:44 PM PDT by Mo1 (Hey GOP ---- Not one Dime till Republicans grow a Spine !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 740 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

Who is "hosting" Galloway up on the Hill today? Anybody know?


747 posted on 05/17/2005 12:26:31 PM PDT by Howlin (North Carolina, where beer kegs are registered and illegal aliens run free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
It was due diligence.

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.

748 posted on 05/17/2005 12:30:28 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 740 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth; Miss Marple
All I know is, if they postponed the rest of the hearing to wait for "a better time"--it may never start again, since they are supposed to do the judicial nominees, and the Bolton nomination the rest of this week and next---

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.

749 posted on 05/17/2005 12:35:02 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 726 | View Replies]

To: 1066AD; onyx; goodnesswins

I've not heard that. His wife is a cousin of Arafat. I doubt she'll spill any beans.


750 posted on 05/17/2005 12:38:45 PM PDT by pau1f0rd (I'm looking over the wall - and they're looking at me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: CasearianDaoist
I thought Galloway forced the issue, in effect invited himself via a Democrat proxie. Could be wrong.

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.

751 posted on 05/17/2005 12:39:03 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Was Galloway sworn in

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).

752 posted on 05/17/2005 12:41:19 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 746 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

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.


753 posted on 05/17/2005 12:43:36 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 746 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
I am 100% sure---I saw it on my internet feed

Well .. Galloway is gonna have some troubles there

Thanks for confirming that .. I didn't hear because of my whinny daughter

754 posted on 05/17/2005 12:43:49 PM PDT by Mo1 (Hey GOP ---- Not one Dime till Republicans grow a Spine !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 752 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
Yes, it was really like an deposition in a civil case: See what the other side has.
755 posted on 05/17/2005 12:47:17 PM PDT by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 748 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Are you saying Coleman baited him to get him over here to swear him in? To cross his T's and dot his I's on the evidence they have against galloway, and galloway, being the pompous ass he is...took the bait?
756 posted on 05/17/2005 12:48:06 PM PDT by processing please hold (Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 753 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

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


757 posted on 05/17/2005 12:50:11 PM PDT by weegie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 754 | View Replies]

To: weegie
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

758 posted on 05/17/2005 12:51:48 PM PDT by Mo1 (Hey GOP ---- Not one Dime till Republicans grow a Spine !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 757 | View Replies]

To: pbrown

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.


759 posted on 05/17/2005 12:52:22 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 756 | View Replies]

To: pbrown
He may not be saying that, but that is what I am saying.
760 posted on 05/17/2005 12:52:59 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 756 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740741-760761-780 ... 801-811 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson