Galloway Bluster Fails to Convince Senate

The Scotsman ^ | Wed 18 May 2005 | GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN

[West Coast Conservative]

GEORGE Galloway yesterday failed in his attempt to convince a sceptical US Senate investigative committee that he had not profited from oil dealings with Iraq under the UN’s controversial oil-for-food programme.

Despite a typically barnstorming performance full of bluster and rhetorical flourishes, the former Glasgow Kelvin MP was pinned down by persistent questioning over his business relationship with Fawaz Zureikat, the chairman of the Mariam Appeal - set up to assist a four-year-old Iraqi girl suffering from leukaemia.

And it was a Democrat senator, Carl Levin, rather than the Republican committee chairman, Norm Coleman, who gave him the hardest time as Mr Galloway sought to turn the tables on his inquisitors, leaving him no closer to clearing his name than when he took his seat in front of the sub-committee of the Senate’s homeland security and government affairs committee in Washington.

Time and again, Mr Levin questioned him, requesting wearily that he deliver a straight answer to a straight question. But Mr Galloway could, or would not.

The Respect MP clearly thought he came out on top, and said so bluntly afterwards, describing the chairman as "not much of a lyncher".

But Mr Coleman, accused by the MP of being "remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice", appeared unswayed by Mr Galloway’s testimony. "If in fact he lied to this committee, there will have to be consequences," he said afterwards.

Asked whether Mr Galloway violated his oath to tell the truth before the committee, Mr Coleman said: "I don’t know. We’ll have to look over the record. I just don’t think he was a credible witness."

[Ken H]

I like Koffi with my TOAST!

He does seem to be in a jam.

[STARWISE]

Who has the authority to charge and prosecute Galloway for his crimes?

[Lord Nelson]

I can sort of understand why Democrats want to keep the UN. I am Canadian but have a better grasp of the American Republic than Democrats seem to have. Isn't the American Republic suppose to be looking after the interest of Americans? And wasn't the Republic set up to get away from foreign powers from dictating American interests. Some international organization is not suppose to tell America when to take military action. Somehow Democrats think it should.

But what I don't get is why George Bush tolerates the UN. Couldn't Republican Congress and Bush abolish the UN with a stroke of the pen? The UN is a rallying point for all those that hate the United States - not just America as it is - but what the American constitution is all about.

There is no law requiring France, or Germany, or Canada to help the US in its war in Iraq. The fact they bowed out is their prerogative. But not only did they not join, they also attempted to keep the United States from taking unilateral action. And it turns out that it was not based on popular opinion, but what Saddam was able to give them.

[weegie]

The accusation is that Galloway's Mariam fund received money from an oil trader who is alleged to have abusing the oil for food programme.

the Mariam fund was set up to provide Leukemia treatment in Scotland for a six year old Iraqi girl

[Lord Nelson]

Geez. It's bad enough that Eurotrash are scrambling to protect their precious United Nations. But even the liberal press in America is on the move to cover up this scandal. Hopefully the truth is stronger than all these conspirators.

[Darkwolf]

"Isn't the American Republic suppose to be looking after the interest of Americans?"

Yup, just as any nation's representatives are. So much for that partisanship ends at the water's edge stuff.

[Darkwolf]

"He does seem to be in a jam."

And my favorite jam flavor is...STRAWBERRY! No, that doesn't work...

[Darkwolf]

"The accusation is that Galloway's Mariam fund received money from an oil trader who is alleged to have abusing the oil for food programme. the Mariam fund was set up to provide Leukemia treatment in Scotland for a six year old Iraqi girl"

As I understand it, the accusation is that that money was funneled to "Respect" an anti-war group, through the pal o' Galloway's he helped get into the oil for food program.

[zbigreddogz]

He was so paper thin in his attack-to-divert-attention strategy, that I think even Democrats that are even remotely to the right of, say, Paul Wellstone, will see that this guy is a liar.

[Lord Nelson]

To me, as an outsider, and hearing the opinions of those outside of America, here is what the UN scandal means.

1) Multilateralists - meaning basically the rest of the Western World - don't care. They have their fingers in their ears and are screaming "la la la la la". Why? They already have their conclusions. "America is evil. America didn't do what we told them to do. They are bad." They will not listen to reason. They do not want to know that their United Nations is not only ineffective but also corrupt.

2) The United States is on its own (in the West) in its war on terror. The sooner the US accepts that the better. Who cares if France and Canada hate you? The only time when the US had the world's so called love was when the US was humbled at 911. As long as America is weak she is loved. Democrats have this memory lane vision of America being universally loved until Bush took office. Seems to me the world hated America mightily in the Cold War. Basically America cannot win this battle of affection. America is damned for not taking action and then damned for taking it. If not taking action makes America looks weak to the Islamists then America should just take action.

Back to my point.

Canada? Canada just released 2 Sikhs that murdered hundreds on the Air India attack in the 1980s. Canada has basically told the world it will not enact justice on Islamic terrorists. Canada doesn't even properly fund its military. Count Canada out in the war on terror

Britain? Blairs days are numbered. He may not last his term as his party wants him out. After he is out. So is Britain.

Germany and France? France is more concerned about balancing American power than fighting terrorists. Count them out. Germany will do whatever France tells them. They are out too.

The rest of Europe are vassals of Brussels. Count them out.

The only Western ally the US may have is Australia.

3) The US will likely find allies outside the West. Israel and India already are working together to share intelligence in the war on terror. The US should strengthen its relations with both - to hell with the anti-semites who charge Israel controls America. The Philippines would also be on board. We could patch up differences with the Serbs and work together with Greece, Macedonia, and Croatia. Perhaps even the Russians will wake up and realize, "gee, those people that murdered our children weren't the usual separatists".

The US needs allies that are morally fit. That acknowledge fully the immorality of targeting nonmilitary personnel to advance political aims. It's too bad the Democrats want to side with the those who lack the fight.

[Lord Nelson]

Excellent point. The Democrats are putting the Republic in jeopardy.

[america-rules]

I kept thinking Coleman wasn't even in the Senate when all this happened so why was he going after Coleman ?

[ozzymandus]

I just saw this bribe-grubbing clown on PBS getting oral sex from Charlie Rose. Charlie never met an anti-American he didn't love.

[weegie]

Respect wasn't formed at the time. Galloway was still a member of the Labour party at the time of the alleged actions.

[Darkwolf]

Because he's pro-Iraq war. I had the exact same thought you express here, when Galloway went after Coleman on Chris Matthews, saying he's a hypocrite or whatever. Then he blabbed some more and I realized he was just smearing anyone who was pro-Iraq War.

[Darkwolf]

As I recall Respect was formed in 2004 or 2003. I can't keep all of Galloway's ponzi schemes straight.

[weegie]

The allegations go back to 2001.

Respect was set up in September 2004

[Darkwolf]

That's what I said. Relax.

[Darkwolf]

PS Respect was officially founded in 2/2/04, according to its own website, not the date you mention. Not that this matters.

[weegie]

I wish I could - Unfortunately Id get fired ;)