Posted on 05/17/2005 10:31:41 PM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at thescotsman.scotsman.com ...
You could always get a job at the UN, seems they do a lot of on-the-job relaxing.
Primarily, the UK.
I may be wrong on some of these points or even all. But here's what I believe at this point...
He has therefore become a highly expendable embarassment.
Both sides of the aisle in the US Senate have reason to want Galloway brought to heel, shall we say.
There are private understandings between us and the Blair government concerning this high profile Galloway inquiry in our Senate.
Today, Galloway did exactly what he was expected to do. He said too much and what he said was ill-considered. He looked arrogant, belligerant, facile and evasive.
Carl Levin looked like the cat who ate the canary during and after the hearing today. I believe the committee has far more on Galloway than the man believes they have.
I do not think it was politically advisable for the British government to conduct such a hearing at this time. I believe they will wait for us to hand them a case against Galloway and then, "having no choice," they will proceed against him.
And an East side address - -hmmmm.
tempting
-"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...--
Norm came to a gunfight armed with a penknife. Galloway handed him his a$$. Not to say that Galloway isn't as guilty as a Clinton, but the boys in the country club appeared far less smart than they try to make us think they are, and a thug like Galloway can have a field day among his intellectual lessers.
I'd like to know just what kind of punishment Coleman thinks he can hand Galloway for lying through his teeth. Wouldn't there be a huge jurisdictional problem? I would think that Galloway must know that he could treat the bloviators with total contempt, as he did, without any consequences.
Not one of the brighter senate moments, IMHO.
That really depends if you drank a healthy portion of the "Koolaid" that Mr. Galloway was serving up yesterday. When you look at it objectively (As a conservative does) he was practicing traditional liberal practices of deflecting to other issues, name calling, ranting, and AVOIDING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. You need to pull back and look at the overall exercise for what it is. Coleman kept to the high ground and did not buy into Galloway's attack of mental dysentary.
To understand the relunctance to remove the U.N., you need to ask one simple question.
After we remove from that body, it will collapse. We are the U.N. A vacuum of power will then arise. Who will fill that vacuum?
IMO, it's that simple. We are already fighting terrorists. We don't need the added complication of half a dozen nations vying for the right to replace the supremacy of the U.N. That would mean as bad as the rhetoric is now, it would be taken to a whole new level.
The U.N. serves as a dampening force against those trying to assert themselves as a Superpower to rival the U.S. China, Russia and the E.U. would all have reason to put aside their differences and finally unify to challenge us directly.
The President's solution is to attempt to fix the U.N., this is behind the nomination of Bolton to the Body. If that fails, we may have no choice but to be rid of the Body but hopefully by then the current threat of terrorism will have been more or less dealt with with only the occasional solo terrorist creating disturbance.
I'm not buying into Galloway's crap, at all. It is just that he came with his radical talking points, and knew what he was going to say regardless of the questions. His Q&A was a simple continuation of his opening statement.
Coleman and all the others should have known what was going to happen, and could, at the very least, have told the sumbitch to STFU, and answer the questions. No point in trying to be diplomatic or sticking to the so-called "high ground" when you are dealing with an avowed enemy of the state.
Let us hope the Brits have the balls to see to it Galloway gets everything that's coming to him. Our boys have neither the will nor the jurisdiction, and yesterday's exercise in futility was a total waste of time.
I could say the same for about 99% of senate activities, but I won't; that might be construed as my taking the low road.
Because
1. Coleman has been the most zealous member of the committee in regards to actually going after the UN.
2. He's a Republican.
3. He's a Jooooooo.
You do indeed. I can't recall a time when the UN, former staunch allies such as Germany, or quasi allies like France were less well respected and/or despised in America than now. Your homeland is in the mix too compliments of the Liberal Party and the CBC.
Considering the relative balance of forces, economic and otherwise, Europe and the other members of Corruption Incorporated on the East River should be the ones concerned about "how others see them in the world". Most Americans couldn't give two s****s what they think of us and any politician who believes favoring the UN over his own country is an election winning position must be smoking some very fine rope.
Speaking of rope, the MP from Glasgow Kelvin may have been given just enough to hang himself with. Sen. Coleman and ranking minority member Levin probably coordinated their approaches. Levin may be a leftist but he's not so stupid as to appear sympathetic to an anti-semitic anti-American hard core Leninist like Galloway.
I believe that we and the Blair government are tag-teaming Galloway. His performance before the committee was in keeping with how he has always behaved and therefore was expected. If I am not mistaken, he will soon be facing criminal charges in Britain. These Senators are not quite as clueless and inept as you may think. There is a reason for both political parties closing ranks against him and doing it so publicly. Knowing exactly what he's like, these Senators succeeded in goading Galloway into coming over here and drawing more publicity to the questions that have been raised against him.
When Alger Hiss appeared before a congressional committee, he became just as arrogant as Galloway. But it wasn't long before he wound up in prison.
Once the noose starts tightening on Galloway, he is likely to start cooperating to save his neck (figuratively speaking). There are soon going to be many on trial in Iraq, including Saddam. I believe Galloway, who is ultimately out for himself, can provide some very useful names and information.
Galloway's performance didn't necessarily play well at home.
Ping
Thanks! It's always well to wait to see what all sides think. BBC played him up, of course. That was to be expected. Not everyone bought the act, though.
Typical liberal response, Yell, call names, defame in place of an argument.
You sound disappointed. You ought not be. He was terrific and his extensive prosecutorial experience was on brilliant display.
I've been harping on Levin's stunning performance in an effort to convey to the gloomy types that this was no win for Galloway. The reason he is described as tougher here is because nobody expected the dems to press the issues t all, let alone strongly.
Now that this article mentions it I supposed others will join my voice pointing out the obvious.
Because Coleman is a neo-con pro-Israeli rightwing Jew.
So says Gag-me Galloway.
Forgot to add Bush supporting and illegal war supporting to the list that Galloway despises about Coleman.
More than that. Galloway is as anti-Jew as they come.
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.