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

Skip to comments.

British Lawmaker Lashes Out at Senators
AP via Yahoo! ^ | May 17, 2005 | KEN GUGGENHEIM

Posted on 05/17/2005 1:27:30 PM PDT by Brilliant

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-139 next last
Galloway certainly has balls, if not brains.
1 posted on 05/17/2005 1:27:31 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Blustering and bullying will not work for Gorgeous George here. Senators have immunity from libel when on the floor/in committee. Also, they can charge him with perjury and/or contempt.


2 posted on 05/17/2005 1:29:42 PM PDT by JAWs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Why was all of the "lashing" coming from one side? Why didn't the senators get tough with him and make some news?


3 posted on 05/17/2005 1:30:53 PM PDT by Betaille (Harry Potter is a Right-Winger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Bully for the Brit!

It's about time that somebody stood up to that sanctimonious thug, Norm Coleman, and said, "HAVE YOU NO DECENCY, SIR?"

4 posted on 05/17/2005 1:32:36 PM PDT by MurryMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JAWs

Yup, if they've got the goods on him. Course, if the "info" came from the same guys who told us there were WMDs in Iraq, I would not make assumptions.

Still I am delighted that Galloway came here to defend himself. Now maybe we'll get some of those documents that the participants in this oil for food fraud have been holding back. He's submitted himself to the jurisdiction of our courts.


5 posted on 05/17/2005 1:33:02 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Betaille

I admit I found this whole episode strange. What is the point (other than fair play) of allowing him to come over here, make a telegenically crackpot opening statement and then face a few relatively inconsequential questions from senators before being dismissed?


6 posted on 05/17/2005 1:33:18 PM PDT by untenured
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant; All
Yes, these are interlinked:

-"No Blood for Oil"- Kojo & Kofi: Unbelievable U.N. stories--

-ADSCAM -- Canada's Corruption Scandal Breaks Wide Open--

-MP George Galloway- voice cries "peace," hand in Saddam's till...--

7 posted on 05/17/2005 1:33:54 PM PDT by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Betaille

If I'm reading it right, Coleman is threatening him with perjury, if he lied. I'd say that's getting tough.


8 posted on 05/17/2005 1:34:12 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JAWs
Blustering and bullying will not work for Gorgeous George here. Senators have immunity from libel when on the floor/in committee. Also, they can charge him with perjury and/or contempt.

I watched it and it did actually work. The Committee never laid a finger on him.

9 posted on 05/17/2005 1:34:26 PM PDT by cooper72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: untenured

Maybe they were giving him an opportunity to commit perjury.


10 posted on 05/17/2005 1:35:26 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Maybe they were giving him an opportunity to commit perjury.

I thought about that, but as I was listening to the FR discussion I don't recall any events like that. But I could have easily missed one.

11 posted on 05/17/2005 1:37:19 PM PDT by untenured
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
If I'm reading it right, Coleman is threatening him with perjury, if he lied.

I'd say that's talking tentatively in political double speak, like the sanctimonious little twit Norm Coleman really is.

12 posted on 05/17/2005 1:37:36 PM PDT by MurryMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cooper72

The real problem is that they may or may not have the proof. I'd think that if these allegations are true, then there must be some evidence of it other than some Iraqi official's testimony.


13 posted on 05/17/2005 1:37:41 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

What I find funny about this is its one politico calling another politico a liar, is that like a kettle calling a pot black.


14 posted on 05/17/2005 1:37:48 PM PDT by dts32041 (Two words that shouldn't be used in the same sentence Grizzly bear and violate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
The committee says it used different documents.

Biased reporting. The committee did not just "say" it used different documents. It entered them into the record.

15 posted on 05/17/2005 1:38:36 PM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: untenured

"face a few relatively inconsequential questions from senators before being dismissed?"

Exactly. It seems like they were just setting up a soap box for him.



16 posted on 05/17/2005 1:39:58 PM PDT by Betaille (Harry Potter is a Right-Winger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
The real problem is that they may or may not have the proof. I'd think that if these allegations are true, then there must be some evidence of it other than some Iraqi official's testimony.

They don't have any proof. That is why Galloway is there, and why no-one produced any. If they had proof they would show it.

17 posted on 05/17/2005 1:40:34 PM PDT by cooper72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom
that sanctimonious thug, Norm Coleman

LOL!

In other news, Paul Wellstone is still dead and Fritz "Where's the Beef" Mondale still lost.

Hah hah!

18 posted on 05/17/2005 1:40:42 PM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: untenured

Just a denial can be perjury, if it's false. He denied it. So if it turns out that it's true, then he's in big trouble.

Of course, I don't know how far the Senate wants to take this. And since a lot of these documents are overseas, they may not be able to get their hands on them.


19 posted on 05/17/2005 1:41:00 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
"Galloway certainly has balls, if not brains."

I would say that he lacks any brains at all. Who knows what kind of incriminating documents Saddam kept under the option of using them to blackmail Galloway, if he failed to toe the line just as Hussein pleased? Those documents would be among the tons and tons of papers preserved by Saddam for just such a purpose.

Coalitition researchers have been combing through this mountain of damning evidence for 2+ years now. Imagine what they have found, and will find?

What do you bet other far wiser European bureaucrats on-the-take secretly offer their testimony and other documents in exchange for immunity? Galloway is spitting into a hurricane. This should be fun to watch.

20 posted on 05/17/2005 1:42:39 PM PDT by Richard Axtell (We should be proud, we made the right choice! God Bless George W. Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-139 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