Galloway : I'd pay to see this !

limerickman said:

George Galloway has already won massive libel damages for similar allegations made by the US Senate committee in their evidence.
Galloway wiped the floor with the Sunday Telegragh in late 2004.
The ST claimed that GG was in the pay of SH.
The US Senate Committee has stated that Galloway profitted from the oil for food program.

There are fundamental differences between a British court of law and the Senate. The main one is that the Senate has a direct vested interest in finding Galloway guilty of their accusations. Look at the timing of it : They have already decided that he dealt with Saddam, they publically announced it before hearing from him. They have only agreed to see him after he *publically* claimed they ignored his requests to be given a hearing FFS !

I feel that they will not change their assessment as a result of that hearing. To do so would result in a loss of face and that simply won't be tolerated in the current political climate of Washington.

limerickman said:

I hope George wipes the floor with Mr.Norm Coleman and his cotorie of liars !

Me too, but I'm not holding out any hope of it. I suspect that any TV coverage of said hearing will be heavily edited to fit the allegations to boot. I am sure that there will be plenty of air-time devoted to Galloway's critics, angry stage-managed mobs and bugger all to the man himself.

This whole affair strikes me as some kind of cheap shot from Tony Blair tbh.

I share your sentiments Dark.
But GG is a canny operator and he'll be looking to crush the Americans in their own backyard.

The dock of the High Court is a pretty confined space especially with the best QC's digging against him.
GG still came out with a win.

I don't think a crowd of partisan pansies in the Senate will prove to be too
difficult for GG.

limerickman said:

Galloway has decided to travel to the USA next week to take on the Senate and their allegations.

yes, forget the MJ trial...this is juicy...

limerickman said:

I hope George wipes the floor with Mr.Norm Coleman and his cotorie of liars !

politics.guardian.co.uk0,12956,1482679,00.htmlOpen ↗

very good. I hope he does. I remember him as the Glasgow, Kelvin in the 90s...his constituents loved him.

MountainPro said:

yes, forget the MJ trial...this is juicy...

very good. I hope he does. I remember him as the Glasgow, Kelvin in the 90s...his constituents loved him.

Pro,

He certainly does seem to fight and fight well for the causes he believes in.
I think he's superb.

limerickman said:

Pro,

He certainly does seem to fight and fight well for the causes he believes in.
I think he's superb.

what i like about him is that he stands up and says what we are all thinking, and he doesnt care whose he embarrases politically.

he is a loose cannon indeed but that is exctly what we need in this horrendus US/UK political climate.

i hope he takes them to the cleaners.

What was his legal fees after taking the TG to court...£1.2m? he managed to recover that in damages.

God only knows what the legal bill will be stateside...

MountainPro said:

what i like about him is that he stands up and says what we are all thinking, and he doesnt care whose he embarrases politically.

he is a loose cannon indeed but that is exctly what we need in this horrendus US/UK political climate.

i hope he takes them to the cleaners.

What was his legal fees after taking the TG to court...£1.2m? he managed to recover that in damages.

God only knows what the legal bill will be stateside...

When GG sues the US and wins, they can add those costs on to the cost of the war !
If it wasn't such a serious issue, it would be hilarious.

There's no doubt George Galloway is sincere and has enough backbone to put his views out on the line. But there are two points I'd like to make:
First of all, I'm assuming Galloway won't be daft enough to travel to Washington without some kind of diplomatic immunity. I say this because the whole Iraq scenario has become totally corrupt and you have these mysterious cases such as the apparent suicide of David Kelly. How do we know Galloway might be detained once he gets to the U.S. and may be walking into a trap?
The problem with the U.K. (and what a lot of folks don't realise) is U.K. citizens differ very little from U.S. citizens and it's a damned lot safer to be odds with the White House and be based in Moscow than it is in London. The case of Hamza springs to mind. I seriously doubt that Hamza is a genuine terrorist since genuine terrorists don't give anti U.S. speeches openly in the middle of London like Hamza did. But Hamza was irritating the Americans to the point they simply demanded his extradition. So, in order not to cause a major disturbance, U.K. authorities simply charged Hamza themselves in order to delay extradition. I think Galloway is now in Hamza territory and I'm certain his movements are being monitored, phone calls tapped and all manner of charges being drummed up.
One more thought about George, though:
Lots of people oppose the Iraq war but Galloway's problem is he takes a totally one sided view. He rarely mentions, for instance, that Saddam Hussein sent grotesque torture videos to his party members to demonstrate what would happen to those people who dissented from Party lines. Neither has he condemned a recent event in Iran where a criminal was beaten to death and stoned in public before being hoisted up by a crane and hung and spat on for public entertainment.
My gripe is basically that politicians such as GG will quite rightly condemn corruption and human rights abuses carried out by the U.S. (as it should be condemned) but he never protests over the situation in most Arab States. He paints this image of an evil, corrupt, greedy west who bear all the responsibility for lack of democracy, freedom of expression, repression of women that are rife in the Arab world. Never does anyone hear GG criticize this situation and, even worse, he saluted the indefatigability of Saddam.
The question worth asking, folks, is would George be allowed to air his views so openly in, say, Iran if he opted to criticize the Mullahs or would he be suffering a lot more heat than the yanks are throwing at him i.e. being hung from a scaffold in the middle of Tehran. 😕

limerickman said:

Pro,

He certainly does seem to fight and fight well for the causes he believes in.
I think he's superb.

Carrera said:

First of all, I'm assuming Galloway won't be daft enough to travel to Washington without some kind of diplomatic immunity. I say this because the whole Iraq scenario has become totally corrupt and you have these mysterious cases such as the apparent suicide of David Kelly. How do we know Galloway might be detained once he gets to the U.S. and may be walking into a trap?

GG's been invited to attend the committee hearings - the committee already published their verdict and GG has requested a chance to address them.

Carrera said:

?
The problem with the U.K. (and what a lot of folks don't realise) is U.K. citizens differ very little from U.S. citizens and it's a damned lot safer to be odds with the White House and be based in Moscow than it is in London. The case of Hamza springs to mind. I seriously doubt that Hamza is a genuine terrorist since genuine terrorists don't give anti U.S. speeches openly in the middle of London like Hamza did. But Hamza was irritating the Americans to the point they simply demanded his extradition. So, in order not to cause a major disturbance, U.K. authorities simply charged Hamza themselves in order to delay extradition. I think Galloway is now in Hamza territory and I'm certain his movements are being monitored, phone calls tapped and all manner of charges being drummed up.

I don't know if Hamza is a threat.
But GG is a british MP.
I think it would be ludicrous of the Americans to try to trap a member of the British Parliament.

Hamza is accused of inciting terrorism.
GG is accused of a lot of things but not (thus far) of inciting terrorism.

Carrera said:

One more thought about George, though:
Lots of people oppose the Iraq war but Galloway's problem is he takes a totally one sided view. He rarely mentions, for instance, that Saddam Hussein sent grotesque torture videos to his party members to demonstrate what would happen to those people who dissented from Party lines. Neither has he condemned a recent event in Iran where a criminal was beaten to death and stoned in public before being hoisted up by a crane and hung and spat on for public entertainment.
My gripe is basically that politicians such as GG will quite rightly condemn corruption and human rights abuses carried out by the U.S. (as it should be condemned) but he never protests over the situation in most Arab States. He paints this image of an evil, corrupt, greedy west who bear all the responsibility for lack of democracy, freedom of expression, repression of women that are rife in the Arab world. Never does anyone hear GG criticize this situation and, even worse, he saluted the indefatigability of Saddam.
The question worth asking, folks, is would George be allowed to air his views so openly in, say, Iran if he opted to criticize the Mullahs or would he be suffering a lot more heat than the yanks are throwing at him i.e. being hung from a scaffold in the middle of Tehran. 😕

I have read a lot of Galloway articles and GG has been critical of SH.
The media image portrayed of GG is that because he appeared to praise SH
when he met him (remember the indefatigable word ?), he must have supprted
SH.
If you read GG's book "I'm not the only one", he makes it clear that he thought SH was a tyrant.

Yes, I've seen George on many chat shows. I was confused when he became very irate on BBC Newsnight when a labour M.P. told George he had urged U.K. troops not to go to Iraq and that the Iraquis should open fire on incoming soldiers. GG denied this with rage and then threatened the woman with legal action on the spot. So, I have no idea what George actually said.
The point is, though, that the public perceives GG as being supportive of Saddam or the Islamic cause in general. That may not be quite so true but if a politician fails to maintain a balance his image suffers badly.
Let's be clear, like yourself and Dave MC, I am no fan of George W Bush. I disagree with the whole policy on Iraq - invading without international endorsement.
However, I would like to see GG balance out his criticisms with some remarks made in defence of womens' rights in Arab countries, the need for democratic values in places such as Iran, open condemnation of Arab militancy and radical causes.
I mean, Muhammad Ali, for example, specificially condemned violent protest over the Vietnam War and he split with Nation Of Islam when, after the death of Elijah Muhammad, they wanted to dfrift back to the old doctrine of the white devils e.t.c. Ali, as a moslem, has given vast amounts of money to Jewish causes, preventing closures of synagogues e.t.c. and backing peace between Arabs and Jews. Ali has basically called the 9/11 hijackers a bunch of nutters who in no way reflect the Islamic religion.
George is too one sided, I think. He will happily drag America over the coals when they fail to defend democracy and human rights but he never seems to view both sides of the picture and come up with some kind of medium. So, to be honest, I'm not a fan of GG and think Tony Benn is a bit more balanced and rational. But that's just my own view and I won't deny that at least GG has principles and speaks his mind.

limerickman said:

GG's been invited to attend the committee hearings - the committee already published their verdict and GG has requested a chance to address them.

I don't know if Hamza is a threat.
But GG is a british MP.
I think it would be ludicrous of the Americans to try to trap a member of the British Parliament.

Hamza is accused of inciting terrorism.
GG is accused of a lot of things but not (thus far) of inciting terrorism.

I have read a lot of Galloway articles and GG has been critical of SH.
The media image portrayed of GG is that because he appeared to praise SH
when he met him (remember the indefatigable word ?), he must have supprted
SH.
If you read GG's book "I'm not the only one", he makes it clear that he thought SH was a tyrant.

"The point is, though, that the public perceives GG as being supportive of Saddam or the Islamic cause in general."

I worded that badly. I meant to say "extremist Islamic cause" since I suppose the "Islamic cause" is more to do with people wishing to escape poverty and defend a peaceful life so has nothing to do with extremism. Forget Bushisms that was a Carrerism but I corrected my goof, I hope.

Has anyone read that Senate Subcommittee report ?

It's a disgrace, a Sun reporter wouldn't put their name on that because it's so bloody shabby. One of the sections is entitled "Outspoken support of Iraq and the Hussein Regime". That stands out as utter [censored] because their *only* evidence to support the assertion that Galloway supported Hussein is a quote taken out of context. That out of context quote also goes against just about everything Galloway has said about Iraq over the years.

There are lots of little quotes such as "accepted the payment", with *NO* attribution. I can only conclude that the quotes are there to lend authority to unfounded claims made by the committee themselves. Shabby trick, but I expected it from a bunch of "thugs, criminals and scumbag career politicians intent on stabbing an innocent man in the back for their own personal gain".

darkboong said:

Has anyone read that Senate Subcommittee report ?

It's a disgrace, a Sun reporter wouldn't put their name on that because it's so bloody shabby. One of the sections is entitled "Outspoken support of Iraq and the Hussein Regime". That stands out as utter [censored] because their *only* evidence to support the assertion that Galloway supported Hussein is a quote taken out of context. That out of context quote also goes against just about everything Galloway has said about Iraq over the years.

There are lots of little quotes such as "accepted the payment", with *NO* attribution. I can only conclude that the quotes are there to lend authority to unfounded claims made by the committee themselves. Shabby trick, but I expected it from a bunch of "thugs, criminals and scumbag career politicians intent on stabbing an innocent man in the back for their own personal gain".

The quote that you refer to was taken from a person AFTER the fall of the SH regime and was made under duress.
The said committee have already stated that they do not have any proof of Galloways alleged profiteering.
The committee chairman Senator Norm Coleman has stated that the committee cannot prove that GG was paid by SH.
Yet they still stand by their claim that Galloway profitted !

US Senate committee indeed.
The SUN at least have an excuse - they want to sell papers with lies.
What is the excuse of this US Senate Committee ?

That's why I welcome GG going to the USA and showing those clowns on that committee up for what they are.

limerickman said:

That's why I welcome GG going to the USA and showing those clowns on that committee up for what they are.

IF there was any kind of justice those clowns would be packed off to Iraq for a taste of what a "few bad apples" do to people accused without proof and subsequently detained without charge.

darkboong said:

IF there was any kind of justice those clowns would be packed off to Iraq for a taste of what a "few bad apples" do to people accused without proof and subsequently detained without charge.

Agreed.

It's people like GG though who help to show the lies that we were all told about Iraq.
It's a pity that there aren't more people like him in politics.
If there were more people like GG, clowns like Bush and Bliar would not be allowed to get away with their lies and their despicable acts.