This is GORGEOUS??? (Nice lefty eye bags and wrinkles.)
Posted on 05/17/2005 1:27:30 PM PDT by Brilliant
Yeah, I think you're right. It's pretty amazing to me that they'd make the allegation, though, without some pretty good evidence. Apparently the evidence they've got was the statement of some Iraqi officials who were involved. But there's gotta be a paper trail of some kind.
Getting a London or Swiss bank to produce it though might be difficult.
Interesting you should invoke that quote...
As it turned out, the original recipient of that question in a Senate Committe was proven right 40 years down the road.
And the Pinko Brit, who would have gotten b!tch slapped by Winston Churchill from Whitehall to the Cliffs of Dover (and over the edge) if he had been alive in 2003, did'nt invoke that question himself. And probably for the same reason.
It may not be stupid if he's innocent. And this may be the last we will hear about it if that is the case.
Course, as you say, it would be very interesting if it turned out that he was guilty, and it could be proven.
Maybe, maybe not. It might have depended on his age - Winston Churchill used to be a Liberal MP.
Interesting that this was the only sound bite used by NPR in their newscasts today. Coincidence? Me thinks he doth protest too much.
Yeah, it sounds like he's saying that the documents were forged, rather than that the documents don't support the allegations.
I am surprised the scumbag dems on the Committee didn't side with Galloway much more vigorously. Afterall, they've long taken orders from the same communist/neocommunist commisars.
So if he doesn't protest he is guilty, but if he does he is guilty? For all I don't like Galloway, he was right on one thing - the committee should have asked him to speak before pronouncing him guilty, especially when they messed up the so-called guilty documents.
Maybe they can but what effect would it have?
He not an American citizen and he's not subject to any of congress's authority....or do I have it wrong?
I was thinking of the 1940 edition of Winston.
The Torrie PM.
They can only charge him with anything if he lied. Galloway is not stupid - he wouldn't be there if he would incriminate himself.
Lets be honest here, the Senate has no power over him even if he did lie.
So not of the post 1945 pro-European either? :)
Even if he did commit perjury (which is almost a certainty), the fact that he's a duly elected leader of the government of an ally means realistically that we could never lay a finger on the SOB.
The best that we could hope for would be an international prosecution, but that will never happen. In a more sane world, he would be prosecuted within his own country, but that's not going to happen either.
Not a US lawyer but by my reckoning once he stepped foot in the United States he subjected himself to US juristiction. Once he took the oath in the senate understanding that he was subject to perjury, well, he's subject to perjury! We tend to extradite folk whenever you ask.... that is why I actually think this is one massive PR blunder. I don't think he would've gone if there was truth in the specific allegations. THe daft thing about this is whilst he accuses the committee of being a 'smokescreen' for the 'failure in Iraq' - he is actually using it as a smokescreen to bring up the old arguments about WMD rather than concentrating on the fact that Iraq has an Iraqi government free from the grip of an evil dictator and a future in the peoples gift. This really is a PR disaster. I'm stunned the US let him in.
That was what Mr. Welch said to Senator J. McCarthy back in `51, and it was pure hyperbole. (In English, 'horse-feathers'.)
Where?
the fact that he's a duly elected leader of the government of an ally means realistically that we could never lay a finger on the SOB.
Which Government is he the elected leader of?
The best that we could hope for would be an international prosecution, but that will never happen. In a more sane world, he would be prosecuted within his own country, but that's not going to happen either.
Americans are not subject to any international court so how could america prosecute anyone? And prosecuted for what?
And I don't like Galloway, and didn't like him years before you had even heard the name, but is no evidence, insinuation from war criminals or false evidence now enough to indict?
By sanctimonious little twist, you're referring to the man that beat the living dog snot out of that Carter era incompetent Fritz Mondale?
US Legal complications for Galloway?
In a Clintonian parsing, he said nothing about receiving vouchers from Saddam, only oil itself. We shall see how things shake out.
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.