To Sen. Coleman, et. al.,

ALL THE WAY WITH A RED HOT POKER!!!!!

The bbc has a video link at their site. I saw it and it was f'ing GREAT ! Funny how it took a Scot to finally deliver the smackdown these scoundrels deserve. If they allow Ahnold to run for prez, then Galloway has got my vote.

That's a great post, Brad. On your final question, I wouldn't presume to answer for the evil-doers, but from where I sit the answer appears to be "NO" ... Cheers for George Galloway, the Respect Party and telling the truth no matter what!

What? Now we have to outsource decency and courage?

Where the h--l are the Dems?

JS -

You mean those cowardly "lions?"

I wish that lambasting HAD come from one of our own. The outrage, the outrage, the OUTRAGE...

One thing he didn't mention: the smear was accomplished with the connivance of Bliar's people.

AT LAST....someone gutsy enough to tell it like it is and where it counts. I want to shake George Galloway's hand and shout "job well done"! But like everything else that doesn't suit this administration's web of deceit, I fear these facts will get swept under the rug and forgotten.

Here is a link to the video of the complete testimony:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/.../uk_politics/4556113.stm

What I found amazing about Mr. Galloway's testimony, was not so much what he said, although my heart sang as he delivered the truth at last, what impressed me was the way he delivered the truth.
I don't think I have ever seen a more composed and passionate response made by anyone under oath. And I know I have never before heard more articulate and fluent use of the language.
I think this was a landmark speech that will be remembered by the British and in particular the Scottish people in the same way as Churchill's 'Fight them on the beaches...' and Kennedy's Inaugural address is remembered and taught to small children as an illustration of how educated men defend themselves and their ideals.
How much more powerful were Mr. Galloway's words, than all the bombs that were dropped on innocent Iraqi people.
I wept when he said, “I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time.”
The children have committed no crime, sold no oil, chanted not a word of defiance against the American people. They have only cried, and many have died, in all innocence and with out understanding why they have been orphaned and left without siblings.
How will we reply to these babies, in years to come, when they ask the British, American and Australian people why we did not stop the men of war when they sent men to kill their fathers and brothers? Will we say, that a man from Saudi Arabia, who led his men from Afghanistan, attacked America and killed our fathers and brothers first? Will we continue to try to make two wrongs into a twisted idea of what is right? Won't they then ask us why then did we attack Iraq? Why not Saudi Arabia? Why not look harder for this Afghani man?

Will

How remarkably wonderful to hear the truth! Since no one in our own government or media has the "balls" to speak truth it must be spoken by others. Why don't all those sniveling, self riighteous, spineless
bastards just crawl back under their rocks and let people like Galloway lead the way!
Bravo Galloway!!!

Write a well-deserved thank-you note. I did.

gallowayg@parliament.uk

It's about time someone stood up to these know-nothing scumbags who masquerade as legislators and perform as puppets for the Bush planet-eating machine. If these Senators actually thought they could get good press by dragging Georgie boy before their Committee, they really are as stupid as everyone assumes. Given how easy it is to paint the Oil-for-Food fiasco as the political greed frenzy it was, one can only imagine the Senators have about as good a handle on the issue as the pea-brains who implemented US policies in Iraq which have squandered far more US taxpayer money than the UN scheme. It's clear the permanent UN security council members and many other knew of the ongoing oil fraud. Everyone knew. There was just no way to document it as the UN avoided audits of any section of the program like the plague. Anyway, the point is that old Georgie Boy spit in their face and shat on their heads and I only hope the morons who comprise the US electorate wake up and realize how stupid they've been and cut their own heads off.

here is the whole testimony of George Galloway. Finally, someone who is willing to stand up to those criminals, and call them criminals....

rtsp://video.webcastcenter.com/srs_g2/govtaff051705.rm?start="2:02:00"

I have to agree, some of these senators are out of their mind. Many others are deceived by a very strange and evil man Senator Bill Frist, who apparently got his thrills from operating on cats!

How could someone this insane be heading up the majority!???

Plus, read this article. Dick Cheney and Karl Rove's Halliburton scandal has been exposed and tarnished all through the mud.

http://www.guardian.co.u...y/0,3604,1438564,00.html
http://www.conspiracypla...d=118&contentid=2175

""We would like to know why this audit report - and audit reports on nine additional task orders - are being withheld from Congress," they wrote.
"We also want to know what steps you are taking to recover these funds from Halliburton."

In a second public letter yesterday, Mr Waxman accused Bush administration officials of deliberately withholding information on overcharges by Halliburton from UN auditors - at its behest. Some $1.6bn of the $2.5bn Halliburton contract was funded from Iraqi oil revenues overseen by the UN.

"The evidence suggests that the US used Iraqi oil proceeds to overpay Halliburton and then sought to hide the evidence of these overcharges from the international auditors," the letter says.

The audit, released by the congressmen on Monday, offers the most definitive glimpse so far of overbilling by Halliburton, once run by the vice president, Dick Cheney.

In the most startling transaction, it charged the Pentagon $27.5m to ship $82,100 worth of cooking and heating fuel to Iraq from Kuwait - 335 times the actual cost of the liquified petroleum gas, a charge the Pentagon auditors said was "illogical".

The firm and its subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR), face several investigations, including a fraud inquiry from the justice department. A preliminary Pentagon audit, focused on the immediate aftermath of the US-led invasion, found KBR overcharged the Pentagon by $61m for kerosene and other fuels.

Critics of Halliburton are convinced this represents just a fraction of the overcharges.

The audit released this week covers only one of 10 task orders undertaken under the $2.5bn no-bid contract awarded immediately after the invasion of Iraq.

However, the overcharges identified in the single task order already dwarf the $61m (£32m) in previously discovered overcharges. Halliburton charged army corps of engineers $875m (£457m) to supply fuel from May 2003 to March 2004. Auditors questioned $108.4m (£56.6m) of those costs.

As the Congressmen note, the auditors criticised charges in nearly every area, saying the firm misled auditors and failed to supervise sub-contracts. "Halliburton failed to demonstrate its prices for Kuwaiti fuel were 'fair and reasonable'," the auditors say. They also note Halliburton refused repeatedly to provide information on costs of obtaining fuel from Turkey and Jordan, or reveal how it selected its contractors in Kuwait.

A Halliburton spokeswoman, Wendy Hall, said it was forced into paying, and charging, high costs because of the security situation following the war. "Transporting fuel into Iraq was a mission fraught with danger, which increased the prices that firms were willing to offer for trans portation," she told reporters. "The report fails to take into account the fact KBR performed an urgent mission at the army's request and the mission took place in a wartime environment."

The lawyer for an army corps of engineers whistle-blower said that his client was set to be interviewed for a second time by Pentagon investigators on April 4 over her claims of contracting abuse involving KBR. "

The dead mainstream media may not care, but BBC news sure does and they also know the bunch of thugs manufactured all of the WMD and IRAQ threats!

Matt

Positively Churchillian. I hope the whole world was watching...if not, there's always instant replay.

This is 'way OT, but you really aren't going to believe the news. Bush wants to sell Hawaii to Japan to pay for his "war on terror!!!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

It just got me thinking, if that article wasn't satire I bet alot of people would move to hawaii. Instant secession!

BRAVO..THE TRUTH HURTS, BUT DAMN REFRESHING WHEN SOMEONE FINALLY HAS THE BALLS TO SPEAK IT!

Benon Sevan #12 -

"The morons who comprise the US electorate..."?

Thank you, kind sir. I do believe you are addressing them. And the "moronic" US electorate did not actually, EVER, vote this administration into office. Read a bit more at this site, please!

I love you, George...

Matt #17 -

We were wistfully thinking that he might agree to sell Maine to Canada, but no...Massachusetts is more "valuable," I suppose.

Oh my GOD I am so overwhelmed with feelings of love and relief that someone had the guts to pierce the stranglehold of paranoia in the American media and hand it to the Bush Administration on a plate.

Thank God for George Galloway. I wish he were in the US Congress.

Can anyone recommend a "one stop shop" for info on what the administration knew about WMD? With good sources?

For example:
1. that the US had disproved the niger uranium story, which was why * said "we have learned from British intelligence that", because the UK still believed it while the US did not.
2. Curveball/Mobile labs.
3. Aluminum tubes - I thought I heard Boxer say at Rice's sec of state confirmation that 5 of 6 agencies had reviewed the aluminum tube info and said that it definitely could not be used for enriching uranium. I think Boxer aleged that Rice knew about the 5 of 6 opinion before she went on TV and said the opposite.

And anything similar. I think these sorts of items would be good to bring up when we call our Reps, Sens, the WH, the media, and our friends and family.

Cheney should have to add a little detail to what he meant by Iraq, in fact, reconstituting nuclear weapons. WTF? If they didn't have a program, how could they build a weapon? Mr. Cheney, could you share with us what it was that actually convinced you that there was a nuclear weapons site and the cabability to build a bomb. Any photos? Any evidence? We have a need to know.

Republican leadership should all be asked "When do you have enough power before you start to get to work for America?"

Fighting fire with FIRE
or Fighting George with George ,no less.
Bouncing off the walls with joy.

Saw the video. That guy was on fire.

http://www.iraqsnuclearm...Bogus_Nuclear_Weapon.htm

This is interesting. It appears to be someone's analysis of Cheney's statement that Iraq has nuclear weapons. The statement was just 1 day before the war. This person's pondering is a couple days after that. The author hypothesizes that, if they don't find nukes (because the case was apparently thin, according to the inspectors finding nothing) that the US would have to and would be willing to plant something to fake the evidence. The thinking here is that it would be an obvious lie about the intelligence if there was nothing in Iraq. So now it's an obvious lie. But it's not like the author seemed to think it would be. Even though Cheney's lie was obvious, there havn't been any consequences. No need to plant evidence. for the coverup. Just lie about the lie, and it's OK. The situation is absurd.

In the previous thread, Winter Patriot linked to a website that required us to scroll down to find the article he and Teresa had referenced. While scrolling down to the article, I came across this and couldn't resist linking to it here.

Galloway wins libel judgement

GEORGE Galloway today won £150,000 in damages from The Daily Telegraph over "outrageous and incredibly damaging" allegations that he was receiving payoffs from Saddam Hussein when the former Iraqi leader was in power.

http://news.scotsman.com...id=818&id=1384352004

Here's another apparent slice of hypocrisy from the criminal neocon gallery (but, of course, Rumsfeld didn't know about it or make any money from it...)

i waited for it live on BBC.... it was splendid... i have waited so long for someone to stand-up and spread the dirt of US manuevers in international media. i hope the americans were watching, they were superbly blinded by their own media cover-ups and fabrication.

Someone actually called this mob "Liars" in a Senate Subcommittee Hearing no less!

Is it possible? Who is that brave Democrat?

British PM George Galloway!
I did not know we had a Democrat in the British Parliment.

Do I hear the first crack of ice covering the bushmob secret sauce?

British MP. Let's hope he becomes the PM.

This is an excerpt from a post from AP here:

'Speaking to reporters after the hearing, both Coleman and the panel's top Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, questioned Galloway's credibility. Asked if Galloway violated his oath to tell the truth before the committee, Coleman said, "I don't know. We'll have to look over the record."'

I know where Coleman is coming from but what's with Levin??

Cole -

He should, but he's in the same situation as an Independent or a Green here - no major party to party with. And in the UK, that means no majority, no power.

Steve -

Levin's being politically cautious. Hedge your bets. Who ever said politicians applauded unvarnished truth? It terrifies them!

World must know the face of these worst devils of history who have killed millions for oil and for their own food.

Mr Galloway should not stop here rather tell us the whole truth.

BBC article
Mr Coleman said he didn't think Mr Galloway had been a "credible witness". If it was found he had lied under oath, there would be "consequences", he said.

It should also be noted that Norm Coleman was the recipient of an eight point swing over the beloved Walter Mondale in his election thanks to Diebold.
Who's his Daddy?

Invite on BradRadio while his in the country.

The reporter said to Coleman "Did he get the better of you", Coleman replies "its not a contest" NOW ! (LMFHO)

The worlds only "Superpower" shot down by partless pom ,crash and burn Team America inc.

"partyless pom" typing and LMFHO

Peg says: One thing he didn't mention: the smear was accomplished with the connivance of Bliar's people. And she's right, and Bush, who Blair was daft enough to think he could manipulate, has destroyed Blair's credibility with a large swathe of the British public. Just like Bush has destroyed America's credibility across the world. Great stuff, George Galloway!

George Galloway: My hero!

George Galloway: My hero!

I felt Mr.Galloway as a person heavier than all the rulers of the muslim countries, who never been able to speak their conscience.Mr. Galloway is the vioce of the oppressed, he a confident and fearless fellow who won my appriciation. I was impressed with his style and confidence.

That was the finest spectacle I have seen in many years. It was a joy to watch Galloway tear Bush and the Senate a few dozen new ones! Galloway was magisterial, and left his accusers speechless more than once. Go, Galloway, go - show them the way to the gallows!

It's not often that the unabashed, honest truth is spoken in the U.S. senate. Mr. Galloway was the first to do so in a very, very long time.

To the criminals in Washington DC: Deal with it! America will remain free forever!

I'm a British guy from London, and I came across your blog by chance. Thank God that there are some decent Americans who are prepared to stand up for the truth. Whenever I look at Fox News on sattelite TV it sends a shudder down my spine - I feel like I've been sent back in time to Nazi Germany. I guess it's much harder to stand up these lying warmongering bastards in the US than it is in Britain.

So well done again! And thank you from the bottom of my heart.

How my 'respect' goes out to the scot, the truth on the world stage. great and thank you.

Mr Blair its your turn to cringe with a maiden speach in the new Parliament.

I've always been an avid supporter of Mr. Galloway but after watching him at the U.S Senate Im so proud of Mr. Galloway! I would like to recommend to everyone that they should read George Galloways book, 'youre not the only one' that was published in 2004. This book is a real eye opener. It will make you weep and fill you with rage when you read how the world has been deceived by Bush and Blair and how evil these people really are. It will also enlighten you about previous wars that have been fought based on lies, greed and hatred. You will come to repect and love this man even more for his principles and integrity!

Bravo Mr. Galloway!

Finally someone to remind the american criminals how many died as a result of their greed...
USA, forget about "spreading democracy" stay home and mind your own fucking business.

I just did a quick google news search and as usual- nothing in the US MSM about this great moment in history. More proof they are dead.

What a proud Scotsman i am today, George Galloway's performance yesterday was truly inspiring. He represents millions of people in England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales who are totally opposed to the barbaric behaviour of the occuppying forces in Iraq. He will be in my prayers. The promotion of peace is the only way forward

I would like to say how pleased I am to see the reaction from Americans. I am not sure whether you realise how much we dislike your country in Europe as a reult of this war. The Bush/Blair relationship is something many of us despise with passion. On the other hand it might be of interest for many of you to realise that we hate Blair almost as much. We should all work very hard to repair the image the world has of the British and Americans. I am of the belief that this war has done a great deal to support and engender sympathy for the arab world from many people who would otherwise have little or no opinion on the matter.

George Galloway - whether innocent or guilty has made a great number of people very proud in voicing what many of us do not have the opportunity to say.

A truckload of documentation about War Lies, with corroboration of the Downing Street Minutes:

http://www.dailykos.com/.../2005/5/18/23956/5887#67

It's a variety of transcripts, memos, and minutes. I haven't had time to wade through all of this, and the formatting is a bit confusing, but the DKos member Apian has been totally on top of this information. Please take a look.

If only the UK had more Galloways and infinitely fewer subservient, devious Blairs the entire world would be much better off.

Wow, I was floored watching this man.. Galloway has given america just exactly what we needed..The truth always comes out if we are tenacious enough..I only wish he lived in america..Send him a thank you at office@respectcoalition.org or press@respectcoalition.org I even like the name of his party Respect the Unity Coalition..

:D u can imagine how i felt when galloway got those bloody hypocrits by the balls.its about time someone tell those stupid american republicans the truth and how narrow-minded they are.they should bow their heads in shame and shut up.

For those that give a damn...

Contact your local media... inform them of the Galloway case and make sure your reps watch the video too, post on forums linking to the videos.. spread the word... be the media.

Hopefully, some reps will learn a few things about talking straight and shoving the murderous "pack of lies" right back down the GOP throats from which they spawned. If it does exist... even 'hell' is too good for these bastards.

Brad,

Your is the only website that has the link to the complete Galloway testimony.

This is precious and should be easy to find. Please make it easier to find and make sure you come up in Google with this link.

It took me an hour to find the link: rtsp://video.webcastcenter.com/srs_g2/govtaff051705.rm?start="2:02:00".

Please make it easier to find as a public service. Galloway needs to be heard out fully, not just shitty soundbites from the conventional press.

Many thanks.

Do not be fooled by Galloway. The man should be charged for Treason and contempt. Contempt of the Muslim population in London and contempt of British and US lives. This is the same man who thinks the IRA are nice people. This is the same man who lies through the media and anyone else who will listen.

Please be aware that it is not the full trasncript on Times on line. It is heavily edited. Some powerful stuff has been cut out.

Dang, Brad!

Why doesn't our own Democratic Party leaders not stand up like him? Why does it take an outsider to say what has been needed to say for years?

I hope the Party is listening to exactly how they need to talk to protect the world from these criminals.

Here is something worth blogging and taking action on.Senate Intel Cmte set for secret PATRIOT Act expansion

Total 9/11 Info May 18 2005

As the ACLU is reporting, the Senate Intelligence Committee will be holding a closed hearing on USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization on Thursday, May 19.

Our Washington sources report that not only are Senators on the committee planning to renew almost all of the handful of PATRIOT provisions that are set to "Sunset" at the end of 2005, but are also planning to expand many police-state PATRIOT powers as well.

On the drawing board are ideas to expand surveillance powers in so-called "terrorist" as well as criminal investigations. Administrative subpoenas, an instrument to circumvent judge-signed search warrants, are a particular favorite.

House and Senate Judiciary Committees have held the vast majority of hearings on the PATRIOT Act compared to their Intelligence Committee counterparts. The move by the Intelligence Committee is seen on Capitol Hill as a sneaky power grab.

If you want to express your outrage and demand open hearings on the PATRIOT Act, call Intelligence Chariman Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts at 202-224-4774 (fax 202-224-3514) or the Senate Intelligence Committee at 202-224-1700. The ranking Democrat member of the Intelligence Committee is West Virginia Sen. John Rockefeller, (202) 224-6472.

The USA PATRIOT Act police-state bill was passed in the atmosphere of fear and panic after September 11, while the infrastructure of the Congress was crippled by the militarized anthrax-by-mail attacks

Galloway should be British PM? Galloway for US Senate? Get a grip people - This is a guy who marched shoulder to shoulder with murderous IRA Terrorists. The man who saluted Saddam Husseins courage and indefatigability. Open your eyes

Finally, an example of how to tell the truth emphatically.

All moderates and liberals take note and stand up to the neocon madmen.

What a magnificent person - a shining example to us all. SHAME on the Congress and Senators and Administration of the United States of America, the epitomy of evil, greed and ignorance in the world today.

should be "EPITOME" (spelling)

Thank you, Brad, so much for presenting Mr. Galloway to us.

Maxie #65

Thank you for the reminder on an extremely important matter.

This is the DNA of a Big Brother State ... and the neocon madmen are forcing it thru.

Do you have an email address for this?

ABB x 2

Anybody But Bush !
Anybody But Blair !

Take the whole team and flush 'em !
Let News-weak-knees have an exclusive.

BTW - Coleman has no shame; none of them have. They are empty zombie shells, consuming, consuming, consuming, consuming, swallowing, gulping, consuming, consuming...grasping, killing, consuming, consuming...burping, consuming, consuming, consuming...monsters consuming, consuming...

For the trolls on site: I have no intention of reading your garbage.

Six Four #66 We cannot take a person's mistakes in the past, assuming such were mistakes for the moment, to make all that person says to be a lie for all the future.

I simply give him credit for doing the right thing in this one episode.

There are movie theatre owners who won't show Jane Fonda movies in their establishment because of what she says was a mistake 40 years ago.

Gotta stay focused on events and issues, not on personality assassination.

Great visual & dead-on! Peggy #73

Excellent reminder, Dredd #75. If only the "christian right" could remember and follow the words of Christ.

Pity George Galloway didn't have an interview on the O'Reilly Factor...it would have been great to see some fur fly.

DAVE COOL #78-

O'Reilly's a coward. He goes after people he can bully. He wouldn't touch someone like Galloway with a ten foot poll.

SORRY, that should have been DAVE COOK in my post #79- no disrespect intended.

Dredd #75 -

Thanks for pointing out that no man and very few issues are totally black-and-white. "Doing nuance" is a skill that should be practiced more widely.

AW (Post #55):

The voices of reason here in America are not dead... just being pushed out.

The reason Eurpoeans have a bad view of us is simply that our leaders have stolen elections (FRAUD much worse than seen in Ukraine) and that our points of view and reasoning are now dismissed as "Conspiracy Theories."

They got away with it simply because these neo cons have included just enough opposition Democrats to ensure their quieting.

Keep your eyes peeled, though. That will all change very soon as the Democrats and Bloggers like Mr. Friedman shout at the tops of their lungs. The tide of opinion is already (FINALLY) turning.

Galloway struck me as someone who would tell O'Reilly to stut up, on his own show!

Find out about Galloway at WikiPedia and SourceWatch.

It is vital that everybody help keep these sites up to date and accurate. Lookup the entries on people and organizations that you have knowledge of and be sure the information is accurate.

If only their were such human being spiecies on this side of Atlantic that say it like it is...concise and clear and and with sincerity.

If the democrats had the kind of balls that this man has - we would of won the election and then some.

But our left is a bunch of cowards scared shitless of their shadow. This is why we are where we are.

Shut up, that is...........

Even though we need to see people calling this neofascist administration exactly what they are, it saddens me that it is even the case. I'd rather the fellow was wrong, but he's not.

As far as the trolls who will appear here, to occasionally act as apologists for Beelzebush-And-Company, and slander those who expose this "emperor with no clothes on", it's becoming akin to pee-peeing on the railroad track to try to stop the train - it ain't gonna happen.

The most ferociously noble Scot since Groundskeeper Willy!

Xymphora has a well-linked piece on Galloway's accusations and their factual bases.

Bob Bilse #86 Exactly.

I would also love to be silenced by the honest and forthright behavior of the admin, congress, and the MSM.

But until I am silenced by their good behavior I am going to shout from the blogosphere.

Look at what the Rude Pundit said about Galloway:
George Galloway's Bitch Slap

Modern-day McCarthyism, with its "lists: as analyzed by p m carpenter

Chas-

#63

Sounds like your talking about the republicans and bush....

Galloway's statements are powerful. I've been forwarding the URL for Brad's Blog to everyone I know.

By not covering the "british memo" except for a link buried in a Paul Krugman piece, and by not covering the front page with Galloway's kick-ass triumph, the folks at the New York Times have demonstrated their paper has no pulse. Its become an upscale version of People magazine combined with Good Housekeeping. Thankyou Brad for this valuable service.

God Bless him (Galloway) for standing up to another witch hunt of the most shamefull type. Just keep calling everyone else immoral bush and cronies, then look in the mirror for evil will look you all back in the eyes for you all of the bush administration are evil liars, frauds, thieves! You all are murdering for oil and money and worshiping liars and non-christian frauds!
As for the media, why are you allowing this fraud, shame on murdock and sinclair broadcasting. Soon PBS will go right, we can still stop that..fight people!
Newsweek stand up and don't recant truth, the riots are due to bush and his boys, not you all.
Voters stand up and fight for integrity and audiable voting, it's our right!
Senate and House members...you work for the people, not the bush boys..you will loose next election for truth will win out!

Made me proud to be a Scotsman...

Charles R Dubord JR - "Sounds like your talking about the republicans and bush.... "

Maybe you should stop whinging and see through the bull. Turn it any way you want, the truth is when Galloway represented MY costituency in Glasgow he was never about. He lied and did nothing except smoke Cuban cigars and go on phone-in's from his Portugal holiday home.

I know what I am talking about - he was my MP. I know what he is/has been capable of.

You should take off your rose-tinted glasses.

dredd said - "We cannot take a person's mistakes in the past, assuming such were mistakes for the moment, to make all that person says to be a lie for all the future."

So why all the vitriol towards Blair and Bush?

"Gotta stay focused on events and issues, not on personality assassination. "

But that's what this forum is about isn't it? The only reason you like Galloway is because he went into a room and made your Senators look like idiots.

But, he DID NOT produce any evidence to contradict the report.

He has since arrived back here in Glasgow, Scotland, to discover that he will be under the focus of another inquiry because the man in charge of the first inquiry, took vital papers out of the country and they disappeared. This is evidence backing the charges made by your Senate.

Start reading the news, do some research and get off your high horses about what Blair or Bush did. It's easy to follow the crowd, but make some judgements based on solid facts and not emotion, then we might take your voice seriously.

Dredd #71,the story can be found at Prisonplanet.com

Truth is our most powerful weapon!

peace.

CHAS-
Individuals who think like you do are not worth the efforts of the progressives on this blog or elsewhere. Sorry pal, we don't need you to "take our voices seriously". You have an obviously trumped up idea of our need for confirmation from the likes of you. This really isn't about Mr. Galloway and what you supposedly know about him that we don't. What Mr. Galloway said yesterday was dead on about the dishonesty and hypocrisy of what Bush and his minions have said and done in leading this country down it's sordid path. We don't care if Galloway has a few warts or even the plague. It was the message, not the messenger that counted. Pointing out Mr. Galloways possible faults is nothing but the usual smokescreen to change the subject from the MUCH greater faults of this administration and its acolytes.

Chas #96
"...get off your high horses about what Blair or Bush did. "

It is what B&B did that make this pertinent--and what they do that makes it all the more pertinent. Thus far it has been getting up off the ground and climbing onto the horse that has been difficult, so an elected PM like Galloway whatever be his 'flaws' in your eyes is more than welcome.

Galloway may be the first to look the Senator's in the eye and say. "B&B have no clothes. They're nakit! The both of them!"

You don't know why there is so much 'vitriol'? Where you been, man?

Now why not go for another soft spot: The 1981 Reagan Presidential finding that shielded American Corporations from exposure in the Duelfer Report?

Washington Post - Friday, October 8, 2004; Page A30
Privacy Act, Order Shielded U.S. Names on List
Charles Lane - Washington Post Staff Writer

dinner is served...

sorry, the brackets hid the url to the post article.

here have a tinyurl on me:

http://tinyurl.com/c7spw

i can't even keep my mind on writing an article (nonpolitical) because i am obsessd with what george galloway did yesterday. i was jumping up and down for joy in my living room. for the first time, i heard someone (intelligently) tell it like it is. it was amazing to see the look of bewilderment on norm coleman's face. i was ecstatic. i thought, okay, something is going to happen, someone on the left will pick up on this and run with it. but i've searched the cable news all morning, and not a word about our hero. what's going on? what is wrong with the press? are they afraid? someone please inform me. why don't the dems speak up? is anything going to happen, or will this just disappear? what can we do? what can i do as a citizen for democracy? are there just too few of us? well, sorry about all the questions, but i am mighty frustrated.

Steve said, "Individuals who think like you do are not worth the efforts of the progressives on this blog or elsewhere."

So, what you are saying is you don't care about the truth or facts? You are quite happy to go along with what anyone says, even a descredited egotistical politician who doesnt care about your great ideals or greater picture, only himself. And the only reason you are worshipping him is because despite his past he spoke the truth (which translates to 'what you wanted to hear').

If you don't want to hear opposing views then don;t call it an open forum. I didn't realise this place was for the blind as well as the stupid.

Oh, and Cole - I would hardly call wheeling a cancer ridden Iraqi kid through a hsopital while simultaeneously ripping off the money to help her through her ordeal a "wart"!

Galloway is as corrupt in reality as you think your own President is in your imagination.

I suppose you'll be at Gleneagles for the G8 climbing trees and saying it's for the good of the larger cause?

So tell us, Colin, exactly what Galloway said that was off-base. That the Iraq war was based on lies? That there were no WMD? That the war and occupation has been an unmitigated disaster that never should have occurred? If you are a backer of this illegitimate war just say so. But I guess that'd reveal your true colors, hmm?

You just don't get it. We Americans have been so lied to, so manipulated by the Bush organized crime family and our supine media that hearing Galloway tell off that turd Coleman and the Administration was thrilling. A moment of truth-telling at a time when criminal mendacity is "our" government's stock-in-trade: that's why we're cheering Galloway.

Sorry Cole, Galloway is an MP (Member of Parliament), not PM (Prime Minister) - go to be correct or the wingnuts may blow a gasket...

He merely pointed out that the documents being used against him have a very low credibility rating due to there being documents of similar origins having been proved conclusively as forgeries.

And he pointed out that to accuse him of dealing in oil (unproven) when the biggest guilty party was the US (proven) is rank, global hypocrisy.

Oh, and he told a member of Bush's backing group to go fuck himself - in a roundabout, diplomatic, tactful sort of way.

Maybe some other members of congress (and I don't give a shit what party either) may decide that when the biggest balls in the Senate belong to a British MP, something should be done.

If I was a rich man, I think I'd start the Galloway award for telling truth to liars.

Whatever anyone says, he's not perfect (none of us are), in some regards he may be an arsehole (I know I am), but in a hostile environment he publicly and passionately showed a congressional whitewash for what it is and for that alone he has to be due some respect.

Coleman said afterward that Galloway "wasn't relevant". Oh yeah? Every write up I've read so far says that he made Coleman look like a gormless idiot. If a few dems or moderate republicans started showing this kind of passion and chutzpah, we might get somewhere.

Can we have him back now please? I'd like him to start giving Tony B. Liar a hard time in the commons ASAFP.

What is most bewildering is that a bushmobster who screws up is put in line for a promotion and a better job in government, which they hate (both the job and the government). And they never retract and never apologize, that just adds to their qualifications. But that does not work for newscasters.

I think that screw ups minor or major should all qualify for advancement. So I look foreward to Michael Isakoff landing the open spot on CBS as anchor, and Rather moving on to the cushy VP spot.. Cheney, with his more than abundant screw ups will move into the pResidents spot when the present office holder and screw up in chief moves to Higher office as head of the new religion of Bushtianity.

Maybe it took someone from a different country to set the truth straight to the robots in Congress, however the word is out. I started blogging back on "Biggest Crime in US history" Jim, Lampley blog and was chilled out by entry #144 with a link to the David Ray Griffin speech about his 911 findings. This chilled me out. I still need to investigate this further always previously believing the George Bush Dick Cheney administration only used 911 to enact the Patriot Act and go to war with Iraq. The bastard's sick plan to destroy the environment, destroying the GRIZZLY BEAR in the lower 48, in addition to world domination all fall into place like a missing link. Just like the frigin chromosome missing from the corrupt snake George W. Bush's inbreed design. 2 rigged elections. How can we (powerless voters) come to an agreement with other Americans who support the proposition that the last elections was fair when you can't recount the votes and the Congressional robots (Most Democrats and Republicans) ignored the findings?

1. Get the truth out to inform all Americans. We need to regain pride and respect in our country and the world. This starts at home.

2. Demand the Impeachment and court trial to jail all responsible in the Bush Admininstration.

3. Demand a new bloodless (without an internal civil war)Presidential election with verifyable paper ballots. This time no matter how long it takes in real time, have someone other than a corrupt voting company that donated the Bush reelection count the votes in secrecy. Possibly Oregon "mail" style if that is show to be the best guarantee of our vote.

4. Vote out a all Congressional Robots in the next election. Good people can make informed decisions based on the information presented them. Right??? Let hope.

5. Reopen the 911 Case and present the new evidence, information and testimony. Death threats protect the leaks of the wicked. If the US government is found responsible, we must gut the bad apples out and put this country back as world leader not world loser.

6. Name the national holiday denoted for the new presidential vote George Galloway Day in his honor of speaking out to the US CONGRESS.

I've read this whole thread carefully and it appears to me that not one of Galloway's critics has posted a link or a quote or any other evidence at all. How dreadfully unconvincing!

This is not only an open forum but it's also a reality-based one. It all boils down to sources ... If you got 'em, post 'em... otherwise don't be surprised if nobody takes you seriously!

Giorgio said - "So tell us, Colin, exactly what Galloway said that was off-base. That the Iraq war was based on lies? That there were no WMD? That the war and occupation has been an unmitigated disaster that never should have occurred? If you are a backer of this illegitimate war just say so. But I guess that'd reveal your true colors, hmm?"

I'd be happy to. Yes, I am a backer of the war. The blanks in between the lines might have given that away.

I never once went into the rights or wrongs of what Galloway said. I have only attempted to point out that the man is a born liar and a corrupt individual not out for the greater gain. You may say Blair and Bush are too, but Galloway as an independent is even more dangerous.

I mean, are you seriously happy that he met with Sadaam and "saluted" him? That wasn't just a slur on Britain, it was a slur on the West.

Are you happy that he has dodged these accusations with extremely clever money laundering techniques?

Any man who walks with terrorists then turns on his critics is walking a dangerous path.

"You just don't get it. We Americans have been so lied to, so manipulated by the Bush organized crime family and our supine media that hearing Galloway tell off that turd Coleman and the Administration was thrilling. A moment of truth-telling at a time when criminal mendacity is "our" government's stock-in-trade: that's why we're cheering Galloway. "

I will give you that. It is easy to forget that a lot of Americans probably do feel hacked off the media and the lies, but this is something you have to realise as well....there are no honest politicians. There are things you or I do not know about and this is daily life.

Watching Galloway in front of the committe was highly entertaining. A bit watching your junior football in against the bug guns at the Superbowl perhaps?

However, the underdog in this case, simply cannot be trusted. He has a long record of lies and spin-doctoring bordering in the insane. But, if what he said to your Senator makes you feel better about your Governement then okay, that must be good.

But when the day comes that Galloway is revealed to be the lurking hoodlum that he is, remember the words I posted here today. And think what it might do to both our Governments when that day comes - give them more impetuce and leverage.

And calling your Government a "Bush organized crime family" is a bit OTT is it not? I mean, you have the greatest democracy in the world don't you? (correct me if I'm wrong). And Bush did win the election, did he not? So is it the fact your democracy doesn't work or the fact it is you who feels in the minority?

Attention Winter Patriot......

The evidence against Galloway:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/.../11_05_05_psi_report.pdf
The report!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/.../uk_politics/4557931.stm (from today!)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/.../uk_politics/4539429.stm
"In that same year, 1987, he faced inquiries over his financial stewardship at the charity War on Want, where he had been general secretary for four years."

"He has sought attention. He has sought success for his political initiatives. But he has scarcely channelled his career towards office. "

"As he noted in one newspaper interview, marching alongside Gerry Adams to campaign against British policy in Ireland did not exactly endear him to the Labour hierarchy. "

"Supporting Sadaam" and "Inciting foreign troops"

Enough?

Colin #101
I do not recall writing ---as per your quote "Oh, and Cole - I would hardly call wheeling a cancer ridden Iraqi kid through a hsopital while simultaeneously ripping off the money to help her through her ordeal a "wart"!---- anything about Iraqi kids and cancer, or using the word 'wart'.

But since you broached the subject: this has been for me a long standing open wound. The use of DU weaponry is an open festering wound and a product of a depraved bomb happy society that we have become. DU, for your edification, Colin, is Uranium which emits low level radiation while most of its high level gamma emmisions have been 'depleted', it is not innocuous.

Use of DU in Iraq has resulted in a large number of disabilities (e.g. Gulf War syndrome), babies born with birth defects and early cancers and deaths- in the Iraqi population and in our own returning troops and their babies born by them.

The 'wart' --I do not know where that came from--is our social conscience that allows this to go on and on. After GW I our government called Iraqi complaints of increased birth defects in newborns "Propaganda".

Chances are, Colin, that the Iraqi 'kid' you whimsically referred to has a cancer brought on by an illegal war using illegal weapons supported by your political party which you admire.

Look into a mirror, Colin. the'wart' you see is what you are.

PS- get a dictionary and use it.

Chas, you need to be more informed. The Bush organized crime family is real. It goes a long way back and they operate exactly like a crime syndicate. There is plenty of information out there that will teach you. You should bone up.

We do NOT have a democracy. The only democracy in history was in ancient Greece. Democracy is direct rule by the majority. We have a republic, which rules by representatives. It was set up this way so thet the minority still had rights. So technically, the Democrats' rights are supposed to be protected, but this administration is trying to take them away. So there is major damage being attempted against our system.

Bush, of course, did not win the election.

Our government is badly damaged and not working properly. No matter what your political persuasion, fixing the destruction would be advantageous to all. Further on down the line you will be glad about this. When you are in the minority, you will want your rights as well.

BEJAMMINO75: Here's a great link to all the things they said about WMD before the war and the truth about each of them. ALL LIES, of course. But then again, now we know they were "fixing the intelligence to the policy."

http://www.alternet.org/story/16274

Charlie L
Portland, Oregon
CLL2001@Gmail.com

Republicans lie and innocent people die.
Republicans steal and give to their rich friends, leaving just an IOU for our kids to pay off.
Republicans cheat and think they are "moral."
We must flush away all Republicans in '06 and '08.

While anyone is free to be in favor of war, it is advisable to know everything you can about the act and its consequences.

>>Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war . . . and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

James Madison, April 20, 1795

This is war, if a "bullet" hits the target your gunning for, who cares were that "bullets" been before.

I'm starting to think that anybody who wants to be a career politician is already fundamentally flawed, would it not be better to work out a system where you find people who can be seen (over time) to be skilled, honest, capable, organized, intelligent, humane, etc. (you know all the things you wished a “president” was) and for them to be “Called to service” of their country. Like a “draft” for a fixed term of service.
Just thinking aloud, democracy is the victim and will always be when the “politicians” engineer their rise to power by “working for power” rather than “working for the people”.
Is it time to examine democracy in this day and age where billions of dollars can move around the world with barely a trace of its origin or ultimate recipient?

I was going to apologise to Cole for mis-reading, as it was Steve who referred to the "wart".

But then you so delicately went on to say, "Look into a mirror, Colin. the'wart' you see is what you are. PS- get a dictionary and use it. "

Hmmm - insults. The last refuge of under-achievers and the ignoramuses of the world.

"Chances are, Colin, that the Iraqi 'kid' you whimsically referred to has a cancer brought on by an illegal war using illegal weapons supported by your political party which you admire."

Can you prove that's how it was brought on? Or are you prepared to admit you are firing in the dark?

And how do you know which way I voted in the General Election? Who ever said I was a Labour voter?

I suggest if you are going to lower yourself by starting to get personal, that you already know you have lost this argument. You leave me no choice to shove you in the pigeon hole containing the rest of the unenlightened Americans that are so prevalent on forums like this.

Someone doesn't agree with you and attempted to write a full explanation but slipped on a key or two. My apooooologies, but then, you are the people who voted Bush in - twice - so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

Teresa makes a good point about democracy. You are of course correct about the definition and I bow to your knowledge on this one. There are no true democracies. At least we all have one of an ilk, unlike what Iraq had. They had a great system, a world-beater of a system with happy, long-living Iraqi's.

Thanks Charlie (#111)

From that site, also found the article from yesterday that deals with the Downing street memo:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/22009/

Looks long and detailed, but haven't read yet.

Colin #14

>>They had a great system, a world-beater of a system with happy, long-living Iraqi's.

I understand your cynicism, and there might have been "unhappy, long-lived Iraqis", but the truth is, many of them were leading good lives. I am opposed to all oppressive regimes, but what they have now is just that. With:

-Unhappy, dying Iraqis
-Unhappy Americans and Brits with increasing blood on our hands and no real justification or resolution in sight
-A horribly damaged military and the destruction of volunteerism
-A badly weakened infrastructure in the USA and huge decline in strength and self defense capapbility since we have neglected the real threats and wasted our resources
-an increasing threat to our safety as we are refusing to correct the mistakes.

This government had no intention of creating democracy. They attacked an unarmed country because it was such an easy mark and intended to create chaos and civil war. You can read this directly in the PNAC credo. The situation now is just as corrupt and more dangerous than under Hussein.

And it has revealed our weakness and foolishness to the rest of the world thereby endangering all of the citizens. The others have been mobilizing and building military strength. We are becoming the easy mark.

Mimi #93 said,
"By not covering the "british memo" except for a link buried in a Paul Krugman piece, and by not covering the front page with Galloway's kick-ass triumph, the folks at the New York Times have demonstrated their paper has no pulse. Its become an upscale version of People magazine combined with Good Housekeeping. Thankyou Brad for this valuable service."

When this broke on the news in Ireland & UK it remarked by the major media over here (e.g., BBC) that the US media was not covering Galloway's speech to the Senate. The BBC named the main US newspapers and commented that they said nothing.

That says a lot, that foreign news services are publicly commenting on the silence of the US media.

Colin-

You really don't know what you are talking about. You hop onto this thread from nowhere and presume what all of our thoughts and biases are. Before you start posting your tired ideas, you might spend some time on this blog and see where people are coming from. You completely distort my (and others) reasoning and then congratulate yourself on winning some argument. I'd hazard to guess that I care at least as much about the truth as you do. Where do you get the idea that I am "worshipping" Mr. Galloway. I really don't know the man. I will say that he DID speak the truth yesterday about the evil that our government is doing in Iraq and it IS "what I wanted to hear" because it is what I and many others have felt for a long time but have not seen spoken aloud in our media or thrown back in the face of those who would try to use charades like these hearings to blow smoke and distract from their own misdeeds. I could care less what party the miscreants are from. As for my "not wanting to hear opposing views", I have no problem with hearing opposing views. If you lived in this country, you would realize that there is little but the "opponents" views expressed in the mainstream media these days. I come to this blog to hear the truth and when I hear tired, distorting and disengenous viewpoints like yours, I have no trouble pointing it out and rejecting it. I will reiterate that YOU are not worth the time of most of those on this blog. You are a troll.

You are correct when you said that you "never once went into the rights or wrongs of what Galloway said" and that is exactly the point. This thread is about what Mr. Galloway said about this countries illegal and dishonest war in Iraq and the disengenousness of the politicians he was speaking before in trying to distract from the real culprits in the terrible misadventure taking place in Iraq. Like these disengenous politicians, you have tried to make this thread about Mr. Galloway's faults.

You go on to comment: "you have the greatest democracy in the world don't you? (correct me if I'm wrong)." Unfortunately, in its present state, you ARE wrong. If you spent anytime on this and other progressive blogs, you would know why I would say that. You are apparently ignorant of our ridiculously flawed voting system that allows highly partisan politicians to be both Secretary of a State, in control of the voting process, while at the same time being the State Chairman for the Bush Campaign; or a voting process subject to both intentional and unintentional miscounting but with no paper trail to determine the true will of the people; or a Congress and party in power that has no interest in correcting these flaws in our democracy, even when the vote is the true essense of our democracy and should be a non-partisan issue in any democracy. Would YOU tolerate this kind of system in your country?

Finally, I will point out another little indication of your own foolishness. In post #114 you say "Hmmm - insults. The last refuge of under-achievers and the ignoramuses of the world." Is that why you started the insults in post #101 by saying "I didn't realise this place was for the blind as well as the stupid" or do you only consider such words coming from others to be insults?

Galloway was devastating.Even if he is involved more than he will admit.surely his statements must be fully investigated.Pity he didn't appear before bliar was re-elected

Looks like "checkmate" to me Steve #118!

Wow, when you come in late on these threads it takes some time to catch up. Great comments & links.

Err! ....sorry, who is that shaking Sadam's hand?

*Caption:* Hey Sadam, why don't you keep that gas and stuff we gave you to spray on those pesky Iranians! Thanks Rummy, as you know, we do have some other pests we want to deal with!
Not a problem, Saddy ol' son!

Re:#121 Whoops! spellcheck, Sad[d]am

Colin
No apology? I feel so deprived.

Can you prove the 'kid' existed? Or was that a hypothetical?

In post GWI Iraq there was a breakdown in the record keeping, diagnosis of diseases and keeping statistics and to make matters worse treatment was limited and infant mortality was of no interest.
Medical complaints of inceased infant mortality and increase in tumors in the overall population especially newborns was brushed off as Propaganda. Can some form of proof be shown about a tumor an individual? No. Tumors in the population ? Yes. But not by us, we have lied too much.

Yet, since you brought up that hypothetical does that mean there is a rudiment of uncertainty in your mind of this war ? Perhaps there is hope.

That you support the war is now a stated fact. Why are you concerned about being called anything? One word or a group of words? As long as you are getting what you need, like increased wealth, entertainment, ego satisfaction, disposing of your rage, anger, hate (dein Kampf) on a weaker foe, feel safer because death is happening 'over there' more than enough reward your plate spills over kind of stuff, one or more of those should be good.

I can accept that bush getting voted in is my fault, at least in part. Can you, Colin, accept that the cancerous 'kid' and many others like her, and the torture, and wanting killing of civilians, and the looting, and the rewarding of cronies and on and on is your fault? Because without your support, Colin, the war would stop!

OT
here's a laugh.

WASHINGTON -
President Bush, seeking to put muscle behind a promise to support young democracies, said Wednesday the administration is creating a special corps of federal workers that will deploy quickly to help foreign governments in crisis.

Citing the lengthy and difficult task of setting up the U.S.-run occupation government in
Iraq after
Saddam Hussein's ouster, Bush is proposing $100 million next year for a new conflict response fund and $24 million for a new Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization in the State Department. That office will coordinate U.S. government efforts to support emerging democracies, with the new Active Response Corps of foreign and civil service officers as a crucial tool, Bush said.

Maybe a better name would be "Foreign Active Response Corps" it just makes ya want to say FARC

http://rawstory.com/

PS do you think it will work "within" the US or "outside the US just like the CIA?

If the democracy in question elects a left-wing leader, as Venezuela and Ecuador did, I suspect it won't be called an "emerging democracy," rather
something else.

Like a "terrorist haven" or part of the "axis of evil."

Somewhere back upthread, VeryWorried posted Wikipedia and SourceWatch links for Galloway. The Wiki seems pretty thorough, and includes links to gritiques of Galloway as well as explanations. I think his/her admonishment to research people is very wise. I also think that Galloway appears to have been the object of a witch-hunt for many years because he is a true socialist, something neither Bliar's, Major's or Thatcher's "crowd's could put up with - especially since he is so popular.

I meant "critiques," but maybe "gritiques" is better after all.

VeryWorried at #84.

Speaking of war and other scary subjects: Crooks and Liars linked to this Riverbend post -

"The Dead and the Undead...
...She stood in the crowded room as her drove of minions stood around her......A huddling mass trying to draw closer to her aura of evil. The lights flashed against her fangs as her cruel lips curled into a grimace. It was meant to be a smile but it wouldn't reach her cold, lifeless eyes... It was a leer- the leer of the undead before a feeding..."
Read on...

Great !! Does anyone know if full testimony can be seen anywhere (there are clippings of few minutes on MSNBC but I am looking for entire testimony. Especially Torrents (BitTorrents) is available or something.
Thanks.

re #108 Thanks for the links. Some interesting reading in there.

I just sent a thank-you note to Galloway for at least blowing the stale air out of the Capitol atmosphere and perhaps opening the window for more "venting." (Actually, I admit, I blessed him.)

Please do the same. We've GOT to open this up somehow!!!

I recommend people read this article by Wayne Madsen for some background relating to Coleman's possible corruption by Israeli interests and elaborating on what Mr. Galloway referred to as a "smokescreen."

http://www.onlinejournal...Madsen/051305madsen.html

Perhaps Msrs. Galloway and Madsen are onto something big. Apparently, Madsen was a former employee of NSA and has lots of inside contacts and knowledge about what is happening within the "bowels" of our government (and I choose to use bowels deliberately).

As the saying goes: "Better dead then Red (as in GOP)"

Teresa #116

"I understand your cynicism, and there might have been "unhappy, long-lived Iraqis", but the truth is, many of them were leading good lives."

How can you say that when he was living in palaces and everyone else in slums? What about over half a million innocents found in mass graves?

"This government had no intention of creating democracy. They attacked an unarmed country because it was such an easy mark and intended to create chaos and civil war. You can read this directly in the PNAC credo. The situation now is just as corrupt and more dangerous than under Hussein."

Hussein had to go. He should have gone in 92 and he refused to be a part of the global community. Iraq was not unarmed - you armed it, remember?

"And it has revealed our weakness and foolishness to the rest of the world thereby endangering all of the citizens. The others have been mobilizing and building military strength. We are becoming the easy mark."

That sentence sounds genuinely fearful. That's a shame - seriously.

Steve #118

"You really don't know what you are talking about. You hop onto this thread from nowhere and presume what all of our thoughts and biases are."

Eh no - I read the thread first when I stumbled across it. An opposing point of view and you can't handle it. What do you want Steve? To take over the world and everyone join hands together singing "We Are the World"?

The Internet is a public forum STEVE, and as such anyone can come here to comment. I did. It is typical of the left-wing mentality to think the world is against you, but the bottom line is of more people thought like you, then you'd be in Government. But you're not and so it comes down to the win-lose mentality. It's ALL opinion, and you sound to me like you have a chip on your shoulder over it.

"Before you start posting your tired ideas,"

Another opinion. But then you’re a "progressive" aren't you. LOL!!!

"Where do you get the idea that I am "worshipping" Mr. Galloway. I really don't know the man. "

BINGO! You don't know him. Yet are talking about him like he is a King. I tried to give you some background but you don’t want to know. Why not? Because he said some words you quite liked and made people you don’t like look daft. WOW!! Must have been really awesome for you, mate.

Galloway performed well - I'll give you that. Unfortunately for you, he's just a fierce looking dog with a loud bark. And dogs bark very loud when they are against a wall, don't they.

"I have no problem with hearing opposing views. If you lived in this country, you would realize that there is little but the "opponents" views expressed in the mainstream media these days."

I don't and quite frankly I couldn't give a shit that your opponents shout louder than you. Maybe it's because there is more of them???

"I come to this blog to hear the truth and when I hear tired, distorting and disengenous viewpoints like yours, I have no trouble pointing it out and rejecting it. I will reiterate that YOU are not worth the time of most of those on this blog. You are a troll."

Why spend all this time writing back a full and solid response then???

How am I a troll? Because I was working and came across this site, thought I'd offer some insight and got lambasted by a bunch of greeting left wing losers? So be it - I hope it makes you feel better calling people with opposing views names. I left that back in the playground at school - oh wait - maybe you're still at school are you?

"You are correct when you said that you "never once went into the rights or wrongs of what Galloway said" and that is exactly the point. This thread is about what Mr. Galloway said about this countries illegal and dishonest war in Iraq and the disengenousness of the politicians he was speaking before in trying to distract from the real culprits in the terrible misadventure taking place in Iraq. Like these disengenous politicians, you have tried to make this thread about Mr. Galloway's faults."

No - I was pointing out the man is a born liar with a history for deception. But he's going to save the world now isn't he so who am I to intervene in world peace.

"You go on to comment: "you have the greatest democracy in the world don't you? (correct me if I'm wrong)."

Unfortunately, in its present state, you ARE wrong. If you spent anytime on this and other progressive blogs, you would know why I would say that. You are apparently ignorant of our ridiculously flawed voting system that allows highly
partisan politicians to be both Secretary of a State....."

Never heard of sarcasm STEVE? Or has that bypassed you as well as your ability to see outside the wee world you live in?

"Would YOU tolerate this kind of system in your country?"

I don't have to, and I don't care. Why should I? I'm British, live in Britain and quite frankly don’t give a danm what you get up to.

"Finally, I will point out another little indication of your own foolishness. In post #114 you say "Hmmm - insults. The last refuge of under-achievers and the ignoramuses of the world." Is that why you started the insults in post #101 by saying "I didn't realise this place was for the blind as well as the stupid" or do you only consider such words coming from others to be insults? "

You never reasoned the argument from your parochial stance. Therefore you are either blind or refused to - in which case stupidity is the only other measure. That should have been obvious.

PS – disengenousness is spelt “disingenuousness”

kira #120

"Looks like "checkmate" to me Steve #118!"

Indeed kira. Thank you for your wonderful insight and forthright opinion. You are most valuable to this discussion.

Cole #123

"No apology? I feel so deprived."

Don't be, please.

"Can you prove the 'kid' existed? Or was that a hypothetical?"

Obviously you know nothing of the oil for food scandal. Go and do some research and you will know what I was talking about. I shouldn’t have to explain the background every time.

"Yet, since you brought up that hypothetical does that mean there is a rudiment of uncertainty in your mind of this war? Perhaps there is hope."

Again, do your research. Try Google..."Galloway + Iraqi girl"

"That you support the war is now a stated fact. Why are you concerned about being called anything? One word or a group of words? As long as you are getting what you need, like increased wealth, entertainment, ego satisfaction, disposing of your rage, anger, hate (dein Kampf) on a weaker foe, feel safer because death is happening 'over there' more than enough reward your plate spills over kind of stuff, one or more of those should be good."

Increased wealth? Entertainment? Ego? Weaker foe? What ARE you on about? I gained nothing from this war except headaches from the unemployed standing in the streets of Scotland demonstrating against it.

I made no money, other than what I earn.

Feel safer because no death over here? Obviously since 9/11 the face of terrorism has shown itself in your country and you
are scared. Rightly so. But to enlighten you, the British have lived with it on our streets thanks to the IRA and their American friends who raised the money to help them build the bombs to kill our civilians.

Don't tell me it's not over here. And you lot helped because you thought it was some kind of romantic ideal!!

I can accept that bush getting voted in is my fault, at least in part. Can you, Colin, accept that the cancerous 'kid' and many others like her, and the torture, and wanting killing of civilians, and the looting, and the rewarding of cronies and on and on is your fault? Because without your support, Colin, the war would stop!

Yeah, right. It makes no difference what you or I think. You need to get used to it. Personally I'm happy the Governments are doing something about it. You have no idea how close we are to more 9/11's and thus, force is the only option. Regrettable, of course.

Peg #135

I just sent this love note to John Kerry. If he ever reads it, maybe he'll wake up.

"If George Galloway can challenge the neo-con gangsters, WHY CAN'T YOU??? What is WRONG with you, you lily-livered, sanctimonious pretender? Where are your principles? What happened to all the promises of "counting all the votes" we all bought into when we continued to send money we couldn't afford to send to the "Democratic" party?

"You and your jellyfish will not get another cent from MANY progressives known to me until you invertebrates develop a backbone commensurate with that of the MP from the UK."

Gee - is this how you get things done? You write a letter and suddenly the light will come on and he will say to himself, “I have to get involved and overthrow Bush. For the people, for me, for the good of mankind. Thank you Peg for showing me the way.”

Maybe this is why everyone laughs at the "progressives" – because you live in dreamland!! LOL!!!

Dredd #137

“They keep lying so we keep up our outrage towards them. When they stop we will rest. But not until then. Onward. “

In other words when the world agrees with you, you will shut up? You’re WORSE than Bush!!! And where you going? Onward to where? You can't do anything! All you do is type into this forum?

I stumbled across it one day and thought I'd join in. I've grown tired of the pathetic attitudes, win-lose mentalities and non-acceptance of a "non-progressive". What a ridiculously parochial and cliquey term.

I genuinely feel saddened that I could not fill you in on some background information on Mr. Galloway because of your biased, narrow-minded views.

You lost me about half way through that one, Colin. Boring. There's nothing worth responding to in what I read. Silly stuff. I did read the last line about Galloway though, and I will respond to that.

For me it is not about this man at all. It was his attempt to speak to people in positions of authority and challenge their actions. These men control masses of people, big governments, weapons, and major money. The citizens should never cower before them. They should always shrewdly question everything they do and monitor them at all times closely. If you want to survive, you have to. Given too much power, these people make huge mistakes that cause great consequences. Many of the things this man said rung true to me. The USA government now is not doing a good job.The details about him personally matter not.

You are entitled to your opinions, and are free to share them. And if you try to shatter what you perceive as our illusions, remember that the questioning of authority is one of the greatest aspects of a democratic government.

And I have been reading this blog for a long time and I have found all kinds of people and opinions expressed. From what I read today, I felt that these folks were not rejecting you as a non-progressive, they were rejecting your misrepresentation of facts and what I saw as an imperious self righteous attitude that had no intention of listening and trying to understand or openly share ideas. It seemed as though you came onto the blog with an intent to disturb. You get what you seek.

I know I am late in this debate, but I have just stumbled on this site whilst trying to find out about the actual American peoples reaction to George Galloways senate hearing. To be honest I have found nothing "not a thin dime" ;D

Tv reports on the web are fair to none with Fox's reporting of the hearing gobsmackingly neglect of any content (infact the online footage of the presenter looks like Brick from Anchorman). Newspaer coverage was bare also. I was deeply saddend at this, which was an historic political rebutle and worthy of its place in history.

You can cast doubts over Mr Galloways integrety all day, and you know what I would possibly agree with you. He is not whiter than white, but that is his point and what makes him dangerous to the established parties and fellow politicians. He knows himself for what he is warts and all but is not afraid to hold up a mirror to his adveseries, and invariably they always come out worse for wear. But one thing that is consistent throughout his political career is that he has stuck by his politics, which happen to be old left wing labour type politics. Whilst labour has morphed to a slightly left of thatcher to gain power, they have abandoned and to be honest demonised the old left wing supporter, but that is coming back to haunt them.

Do I think Galloway knew that his freind donations were from the oil for food backhanders?

At best No- probably telling his freind dont tell me where this money is coming from.

At worst YES - and cant/shouldnt say as it would condem himself.

Should I or any one else be bothered that he knew or that the money came from the UN setup scheme?

IMHO no should we feck, I am happier to see money that would have lined some other greasy takers pocket goto help a young lukemia victims plight and paid to get here medical attention in Glasgow, Scotland.

Ask yourself ... if that was your daughter, would you accept money from the Devil himself to help cure her.... whole heartedly and catagorically YES anyone else who says different is a liar.

Herin is the problem, people have Mr Galloway operates politics on this emotive level and in a grey area IMHO whilst we expect for some reason (except the french!) for our politicians to be decent, godfearing, patriotic, honest people...... and that seems to me to be the problem as it contrivines the laws aof nature of a politician or political life..

thanks for letting me ramble..

oh.. an video footage can be found here;

http://www.hsgac.senate....io_video/051705video.ram

Galloway has spoken for all of us!! we have finally a voice that speaks the truth .. I support him all the way, I hope he continues to do so! It is impressive and a fact that the truth is much easier to speak that lies , Mr galloway has proven this !! look how the US senate stutter and talk sh**t when they try hurt him with those lies.

THANK YOU MR GALLOWAY YOU DESTROYED THEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Colin.. the majority of the planet DOES agree with dredd... he was talking about the Bush Administration (and probably the msm) when he mentioned "they keep lying".

I'm sure many of us would like to know what info you have on Galloway. I'd like to know what allegations and to contrast.. what actual proof there is to back these up. So fire away.

And, like others before you, you're only judging someone by their character and the allegations against them... not by their actions.

People's responses here are based upon Galloway's actions on the day and the fact that he has balls to stand up to those who really deserve the blame for the quagmire in the middle east.

Also Colin... as much as you may ridicule people here for letter-writing, etc.. you could learn the power that "6 or 7 people" here can have. Some things do change... and the media have buckled due to pressure from the blogosphere before, sure.. rip Peg C for writing a letter... at least she's voicing her anger.. rather than just sitting on her hands and doing nothing. I'd rather write letters and voice my opinion than be quiet and just apathetically accept the bullshit in silence.

Colin: "I don't have to, and I don't care. Why should I? I'm British, live in Britain and quite frankly don’t give a danm what you get up to."

If that's the case... what the hell are you doing here? This site is about US democracy and the institutionalized fraud that has made the phrase "US democracy" into an oxymoron.

Colin: "I don't and quite frankly I couldn't give a shit that your opponents shout louder than you. Maybe it's because there is more of them???"

It's because "they" have got the MSM to act as a megaphone for them.

"I was pointing out the man is a born liar with a history for deception."

And I can bet that he's still not a spot on Blair or Bush when it comes to lying to people... and.. telling lies that are as lethal as those told by B&B.

Can you not read M3? (I presume that isn't your real name but that you prefer to hide behind it). I posted some links to evidence further up this discussion.

Maybe you should take the time out to read what was said before you stuck your misinformed oar in.

"the majority of the planet DOES agree with dredd..."

A matter of opinion.

But as to why did I joined in? I explained that also.

I believe America has adult education classes for the illiterate. You might want to book yourself into a reading class.

While it is clear that few on here are interested in Galloway's character and if it has any bearing on his rhetoric in front of Sen. Coleman, it is also clear that few here supported the war to remove Saddam and end his weapons programmes. Fair enough. But how many of you would hope that your fellow American soldiers - brave and honourable volunteers one and all - suffer death in that war, simply because you did not agree with it. Surely no one could be that twisted. Step forward Mr. Galloway, who went on Abu Dhabi TV to incite Arabs to fight British troops.

While no one can say that Coalition forces have purposefully killed civilians in Iraq - indeed the coalition have made use of amazing technology in order to avoid civilians - Galloway actively called for Arabs to rise up against British forces.

Now, terrorists and extremists flow in from Saudi Arabia, Syria and other places to mount suicide bomb attacks on Iraqi civilians, and coalition forces. This is the 'nightmare' Galloway blames Bush and Blair for. Yet he called for this very behaviour! He did not try and find a solution, he incited such actions.

This is not unfounded bluster - this is fact, and it was one of the four charges he was found guilty of which saw him expelled from the Labour party.

Some may see this as off-topic, but I am a firm believer that the words of a man should not be taken at face value, and that we must be aware of his background and character - particularly in circumstances such as this.

Colin, let me guess you go to church every Sunday, you watch Bill O’really on FOX new with your family, and you believe that America the land of poor blind fat brainwashed immigrants are loved by god and have a duty to save the world from all evil doers. Well how about you go and do/say that to your Israeli friend and the Zionists that rape you, you fat YANK… Via Europe!!! Allei France my homeland.

this prick are so boring

six four

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.(samuel Johnstone)

look at what you said....

state sponsored terrorism with "smart" bombs and "clinical" weapons, armies, tanks and guns

vs..

small insurgents with no might of nations behind them.

hmmmm let me see.. theres a patern.... 500,000 troops with 16 pound guns v 50,000 men armed with spears sticks and stones..

every empire crushes the weakest and most vulnerable to plunder its resources, from the ottoman, roman, british, soviet, and now American.

again

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

Assuming Mr. Six Four is right that Galloway urged Arabs (is that code for all Muslims?) to rise up against British forces, what's really wrong with that? He's only saying, "My countrymen have invaded your homeland. Feel free to defend yourself."

Six Four's presumption is that the invasion was legitimate. It was not. It was a violation of international law, a fact recognized by most nations in the world community, who boycotted it. Unless it can be shown that the invasion by the United States and Great Britain was legal and morally defensible (a virtual impossibility), Galloway is a freedom fighter, not a traitor.

By the way, Mr. Six Four, the "information" about Galloway concerning the oil-for-food matter came primarily from that notorious liar Ahmad Chalabi, who officially is now persona non grata in the United States. Other "witnesses" were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, who under the jackboot of torture were happy to tell their interrogators whatever they wanted to hear...about Galloway, other Iraqis, and weapons of mass destruction.

Jack said, "Colin, let me guess you go to church every Sunday, you watch Bill O’really on FOX new with your family, and you believe that America the land of poor blind fat brainwashed immigrants are loved by god and have a duty to save the world from all evil doers. Well how about you go and do/say that to your Israeli friend and the Zionists that rape you, you fat YANK… Via Europe!!! Allei France my homeland. "

Hmmmm. A Frenchman getting confused and fucking it all up. What a surprise!! If you had read up on this you would see I am BRITISH, you cowardly French idiot!!

You're just like your President - wrong, thick and meaningless!

MMIIXX said "this prick are so boring"

Maybe a class in writing proper English would suit you as well.

Six Four #145 You say "While it is clear that few on here are interested in Galloway's character and if it has any bearing on his rhetoric in front of Sen. Coleman, it is also clear that few here supported the war to remove Saddam and end his weapons programmes."

What is clear is that you have based that false statement on thin air nothingness.

We tended to support letting the UN inspections take their full conclusion. They were not finding WMD simply because they didn't exist. The neocon lies and vicious attacks on the UN notwithstanding.

Those on this blog and other progressive blogs are never about dictatorial brutality. That is in fact why we are anti-neocon. The neocon fascists, like Saddam, are the problem of the world.

We realize that when fascists fight fascists it really is not about political ideology.

As Winter Patriot and I have said a few times on this blog, "political" is a term the neocons have perverted. The neocon agenda is about getting the oil of Iraq and the middle east in general.

It is about setting up raw power as the "capitalism" of demockracy and democrazy. It is about who will take the right to kill and take the propery of innocents away by force. In the name of "freedom" and "liberty" and "justice". A pathetic joke frankly.

We do not support the bu$hit and saddam fascism. Instead we tend to support what is good for the common folk - fair elections, government spokesmen speaking truth, peace in the world, and an MSM that is not owned and controlled by neocons.

Colin #150 A wee bit ad hominem aren't you?

Remember that "patriotism" and ad hominem discourse is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.

The world is right and the neocon admin is wrong and we hope for the world to be relieved of this plague in the '06 and '08 elections.

And as a precursor to that we are attempting to get sane voting practices back into the public arena.

I admit that the dissent in the US appears to be hard up for leadership people who can cite the facts in the face of the neocon crooks currently in power, and therefore appear to applaud the performance of Galloway and his persona.

But it would be a mistake to transform that into a notion that we support any theoritical wrongdoing he may have done or may do.

We are simply like a jury that is forced to listen to the testimony of a witness who has, perhaps, been convicted of a crime in the past.

We are not allowed to disregard his testimony simply because the prosecution points out he has lied in the past.

Many people have lied in the past, but that is not proof they always lie or are lying in the current circumstances.

Looking at all the circumstances of the present case we can easily say that Galloway is not lying in this particular instance.

As far as I'm concerned, it wasn't rhetoric, it was calling a spade a spade.

And as far as Galloway's character, it may not be the best there is. There are few saints in politics.

...But whatever he may have done (mostly unrelated to the above topic), pales in comparison to what Bush has buried in his closet. That goes for the rest of this neofascist bunch that's running the USA right now. Galloway's sins are a small stack, indeed, compared to those he speaks of.

Re; what Bob Bilse said;

I concur sir, also the fact is he has not been proven of any wrong doing ever as far as I can recolect. But because his politics are not everybodies cup of tea, especially in a sectarian scotland / divisive Britain, his reputation has been hounded from day dot.

Re; what Bob Bilse said;

I concur sir, also the fact is he has not been proven of any wrong doing ever as far as I can recolect. But because his politics are not everybodies cup of tea, especially in a sectarian scotland / divisive Britain, his reputation has been hounded from day dot.

I, for one, cautiously and regretfully, supported the war, because I was lied to by my leaders. I'm still being lied to, on a daily basis. I'm in no mood to rationalize those lies away.

I'm having a very natural reaction to those lies. Fire the liars and get the hell out of there.

And if you come to me with absurd rationalizations, excuses, and apologism, for those lies, you'll have my disdain, disgust, and wrath, but not my ear.

Well Colin American or English it’s pretty much the same thing, oh no sorry being English means you have to follow your leaders not blair but bush. You see we the French have our own identity unlike you, you lost it along time ago, you just follow, you are traders to the European people, you follow a bunch of brainless cowboys on the other side of the plant, but that’s not really your fault, you have to follow unfortunately, but don’t worry, some day you will find your true identity I hope!! And maybe Galloway will help you on the way just listen for once!!!

As for “Maybe a class in writing proper English would suit you as well” which is what you said to me. My answer to that is at least I can write English even though its not my first language. And I didn’t learn English cos I think English is a good language, but simply because I have to understand you and your kind and what your up, in other word keep your friend close but your enemies closer. The real question is do you speak French??!! You’ll probably say I don’t want to or don’t need to, but then how can you ever understand the European people, you probably don’t want cos you just love Sucking YANKY D*** don’t you boy!!!

Looks like Jack has fucked up again folks in only the waya roggy can.

He assumed I am English because I said British. Sorry, Froggy, but I am Scottish. Shame on you for assuming such a thing.

Second, I never voted Blair!! That's really going to knock you off your wee back legs. I only supported the war.

Now away back to the field and squash some grapes.

"The real question is do you speak French??!! You’ll probably say I don’t want to or don’t need to, but then how can you ever understand the European people"

Simple. they speak English also. Twat!

colin if you are scottish you will understand this then;

go home ya hun ..... could be wrong but you sound like the clasic west of scotland fascist bigot ignorant inbred, supine HUN.

No, I'm not - but FUCK YOU as well.

I knew it wouldn't be long before we saw YOUR true colours, eh Cordobes? To come out with a statement like that erally shows your true level.

The French have long been pains in the asses to the whole British establishment. They have very, very short memories.

techy techy... but your Scottish? - what about the Auld Alliance? - your subservile to the union of Britain and in my book loose any right to call yourself Scottish....

ok you might not be a hun but you have Hunish tendancies

Tell me colin --- how did you know and more to the point WHAT did you know that would make me show my true colours as you say... oh and p.s What are my true colours?

im very curious.. please respond

The Galloway story is getting some US press. MSNBC has a piece on it (link here).

you said
"I knew it wouldn't be long before we saw YOUR true colours, eh Cordobes? To come out with a statement like that erally shows your true level."

you said
"froggy"

you said
"Now away back to the field and squash some grapes."

I had to goto you level to communicate you stupid Zenophobic "twat" I think you used....

ps. to any French people here I appologise to you and state that this person whilst is a small cross section of scottish people does not represent wholely scottish peoples thoughts...

Vive la france....Vive la ecosse

au revoir

in comment # 145, "Six Four" wrote: "[N]o one can say that Coalition forces have purposefully killed civilians in Iraq - indeed the coalition have made use of amazing technology in order to avoid civilians"

No one can say it? BS! Anyone can say it!

COALITION FORCES HAVE PURPOSEFULLY KILLED CIVILIANS IN IRAQ!! Thousands and thousands of them. Tens of thousands! Hundreds of thousands!

There, I've said it. And it's true, too. Coalition forces have been indiscriminately bombing residential areas for months --- years!! Coalition forces have been using depleted uranium munitions which have rendered Iraq virtually uninhabitable for the next several billion years. And it was all deliberate. It was all purposeful.

The rest of the pro-war argument is just as weak. So I'm not buying it. Now or ever.

And so...this thread devolves into a UK bitch-fest of irrelevancies and name-calling.

Peg C

I think that is unfair, I have said my peace to colin, as I know his kind only to well.

My initial posts were relevant to the subject and content.

And as far as I can see through the thread here it was a good discusion, but had an international bitch-fest, namecalling and irrelevancies permeating throughout.

That is all I will say on the matter, and shall let the "discusion" continue

ps. Thanks for that link Dredd you obviously read my opening post thankyou.

Where is the distinction between "purposefully killing innocent civilians in Iraq" and taking actions that have the inevitable consequence of doing so?

I refer, of course, to the "Shock and Awe" bombing of Baghdad, which occurred at night, while children and their parents slept...innocent people, with no ax to grind, many of whom hated Saddam Hussein.

Did Bush and Blair call this assault "Regrettable But Necessary?" No...they called it "Shock and Awe." In other words, "We're here, folks...sorry if you're shocked, but just be in awe of us."

Might makes right, in its rawest form. Anyone who defends it has innocent blood on his hands, as far as I'm concerned; because in their names, sir, the carnage has continued. That includes you, Mr. 6-4.

Cordobes said "My initial posts were relevant to the subject and content."

As were mine, until the insults were hurled at me. I should have known better then to expect any less from a bunch of mindless lefty's.

Colin #169
Your posts were never ---relevant.
Actually they were not ever much of anything. Just a one person's pointless vendetta.

Pro war--anti Galloway. What else lurks in the mind of Colin?

I ask you again-if you are really concerned about a 'kid' in Iraq with cancer why do you 'support' a war in her land and especially a war that irresponsibly discharges carcinogens like DU throughout her land?
What are you getting out of this war?

#133 thanks, Terry, for another very interesting link.

All I have to say about Colin/Chas is this.. it's the most telling, and the exact reason he should be dismissed..

"thought I'd offer some insight and got lambasted by a bunch of greeting left wing losers? So be it - I hope it makes you feel better calling people with opposing views names."

absolute hypocracy.. or, should I say "hope you feel better now"..

War, bad.. proved to be based on LIES
Sept. 11, LOTS of evidence to show it was created by Shrubman and his cronies to stir up the world. You say "9/11s are on the verge of happening all around us!".. but what's the proof? Cause Balir or Bush say so? with their contrived plan to go to war BEFORE they exhausted diplomatic efforts like they said they would? more LIES?

Anyway.. Sure Galloway might have some skeletons.. that doesn't mean he didn't speak the truth in this time of obscene lies being spewed to the world. As for your accusations (and typical right-wing psychotic antics) of his being involved with all these "illegal activities", all the stuff I read (yes, I went to wikkipedia) showed that YOUR government accquited him of all charges, found no "facts" to support allegations, and other PROVED (some by self admission) that documents were being fabricated (by people like you, actually) to try and implicate an innocent (of those allegations) man. Is he guilty of something? probably.. but that doesn't mean he's lying when he states facts.. There ARE no WMDs (and I said that before the war too), there was/is NO "legal" reason to be in Iraq.. we -are- there for oil, nothing more (look at the contracts starting to come out of there now.. look at what was protected.. look at how Iraq is the #2 stockpile in the WORLD after the Saudi fields, which we know we can't take, Saudi is nuclear)..

Anyway.. you can't win here.. and not because we don't listen to you, but because talking shit doesn't make you right.. If it did, you'd be correct with absoluteness.. instead, you just smell..

Excuse me, not all Brit's are represented by Colin, not by a long shot.

I have posted here for some time now and had hoped that this troll wouldn't divert attention and derail this thread as effectively as he has. Can anybody spell "reframing" or "thread hijack"?

He hasn't brought any fact to back up claims against George Galloway and hasn't exactly made a contribution in any meaningful sense. Stop feeding him and he'll go away.

If anyone could let me know of any penetration into the MSM that Galloway's appearance made I'd be grateful.

Vive le revolution de velours, mes amis.

Terry Hildebrand -

Thank you very much.

I just sent this love note to John Kerry. If he ever reads it, maybe he'll wake up.

"If George Galloway can challenge the neo-con gangsters, WHY CAN'T YOU??? What is WRONG with you, you lily-livered, sanctimonious pretender? Where are your principles? What happened to all the promises of "counting all the votes" we all bought into when we continued to send money we couldn't afford to send to the "Democratic" party?

"You and your jellyfish will not get another cent from MANY progressives known to me until you invertebrates develop a backbone commensurate with that of the MP from the UK."

Re Terry #133 -

This is a

Chas #96 you asked "So why all the vitriol towards Blair and Bush?", which is a fair question.

The answer is quite obvious.

They keep lying so we keep up our outrage towards them. When they stop we will rest.

But not until then. Onward.

In re: Colin #138

The fellow doth protest too much, methinks.

The insults have been hurled and now maybe we can continue the debate.

But first, Colin, I, myself, am not a mindless lefty. I lean more towards anarchism and I am extremely intelligent. I follow my own rules and do not adhere to groupthink. I respect many of the minds that participate on this blog as I am constantly learning and sometimes find myself dazzled at their eloquence.

The human brain, is fantastically complex and capable of great feats. You possess one. I did notice some gentlemanly discussion slipping out of you so I know you are capable. If you just collect your thoughts and try to explain yourself maybe we can progress.

There is a lot to say about the Iraqi War and a lot of confusing information, true and false. It would be a good idea for all of us to try to genuinely sort it out.

There is evidence that people who favor war, violence, and brute force... who perceive an omnipotent enemy that needs to be annihilated... have different wiring in their brains. They did an experiment with right and left thinking people and the righties had a different response the the violence they were shown. So it may be hopeless to expect to agree but at least we can learn something in the process.

Dawookie commented on thread hijacking. We needn't be so afraid of this. Almost everyone craves attention and significance and the threads get hijacked all the time, from within the ranks as well. It's not hard at all to get them back on track, but to try like some authoritarian forced discipline to keep them from straying, is too rigid, I feel. I think we should remain a bit loose and flexible while we are keeping our eyes on the prize.

galloway is most skillfull debater ive ever seen this one man ripped those senitors apart , if hes not american he should be made one , can you imagine what galloway would do to bush , our interns should go to the uk for political lessons america could do with representive like galloway, IF you finihed with the Uk mr galloway we need you here if england doesnt want you we DO.

Colin (#114) "Hmmm - insults. The last refuge of under-achievers and the ignoramuses of the world."

--------------and then:

Colin (#138) "I left that back in the playground at school - oh wait - maybe you're still at school are you?"

Colin (#144) "I believe America has adult education classes for the illiterate. You might want to book yourself into a reading class."

Colin (#150) "A Frenchman getting confused and fucking it all up. What a surprise!! If you had read up on this you would see I am BRITISH, you cowardly French idiot!!

Colin (#150) "You're just like your President - wrong, thick and meaningless!"

Colin (#158) "Looks like Jack has fucked up again folks in only the waya roggy can."

Colin (#158) "...Froggy......That's really going to knock you off your wee back legs....Now away back to the field and squash some grapes....Twat!"

Colin (#160) "FUCK YOU as well

Colin (#169) "...a bunch of mindless lefty's." (translation: lefties)

-------------------
And, once again:
Colin (#114) "Hmmm - insults. The last refuge of under-achievers and the ignoramuses of the world."

One who farts in the pool looks pretty ridiculous when complaining of the bubbles.

Greetings,
I consider myself a progressive socialist which used to be acceptable in the UK and I found Galloway's testimony inspiring yet heartrending. Why did it take this appearance to bring the blatant lies/deceit/spin put about by Bush and Blair to the public domain. Here in the UK we have witnessed Blair's credibility greatly reduced. People are no longer convinced by "Trust me" and "I firmly believe" etc.

I have just read the links provided by Chas/Colin #108.

The first one is simply the US complaint against Galloway which hasn't been proved, but brought against Galloway by the ones who support going to war based on CON lies to the world. Galloway "has been the figurehead for the anti-war party Respect", so there you have the reason for the CONs' attempt at silencing his voice.

The other 2 are stories which appeared in the BBC/UK, but neither of these gave any evidence that Galloway has conspired or committed crimes of which he has been accused. In fact they showed times when he was exonerated of the charges leveled against him.

So - Chas/Colin, do you have any FACTS to support your charges against Galloway, or are you just blustering?

Teresa #174 & 175

I agree with you on both posts. The reason we're in the terrible situation we find ourselves here in the 21st Century of media complicity and propaganda is that censorship is alive and well. Albeit promoted and enforced by the neo -CON party - the one (chas/colin) who here complains of being censored, supports.

Ann Rice! Love your post. LOL!

MMIIXX said "this prick are so boring"

Sorry Colin what I meant to write was "this prick IS so boring" ,your comments are unintelligent ,mine was a “typo”.
Sorry for the confusion.

I wish you could edit YOUR OWN post.

Americans Fed Up With Republican Rule? Blogged by JConyers

Republican Congress and Bush Hit New Lows
Breaking Through

A Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll, out last night, has some very bad news for Congressional Republicans. Some analysis from MSNBC.com:

"Just 33 percent of the respondents approve of Congress’ job. That’s down 6 points since a poll in April and 8 points since January."

"'It is [its] lowest set of numbers since May of 1994,' (quoting Democratic pollster Peter Hart) the year when congressional Republicans defeated their Democratic counterparts in the midterm elections to take control of both the House and Senate. According to this poll, by 47 percent to 40 percent the public says it would prefer Democrats controlling Congress after the 2006 elections."

The cause, per MSNBC? The Republican Congress is dreadfully out of touch with the American people, the Terri Schiavo matter, Judges and Bush's social security plan have gone over like lead balloons. From my perspective, the abuse of power, where the Republican leadership runs roughshod over Democrats, that infected the House beginning with Newt Gingrich, has reached a very ugly fever pitch. I think that is obvious, disturbing and distasteful to the American people. As a corollary, I think the American people are --- subconsciously at least --- seeing the toll unchecked power takes on our nation.

There is often a good news/bad news quality to these polls in that it is frequently the case that the public expresses dissatisfaction with Democrats as well. In addition, the polls often show that the voters don't know what my party stands for.

I don't worry too much about that. We stand for many, many things. However, in the current media environment, it is hard to get the message out about those things. The two minutes of news coverage devoted to Congress frequently focuses on the really atrocious Republican efforts we are trying to fight off, rather than our agenda. But if there is a hotly contested, close race --- where Democrats stand to make a sizable pickup of seats --- we will have enough attention to put a spotlight on our agenda

MMIIXX #182

ME TOO!! I have a problem with foot in mouth disease.

re #182 yeah so do I but as far as I know we can't do it ...

re #179 yeah Kira now you know what I meant in #131 when I said these documents are "interesting" ... LOL!

Judge Lefkow speaks publicly on loss, security
WASHINGTON --- In her first major public appearance since a disgruntled plaintiff murdered her husband and mother in her Chicago home, U.S. District Court Judge Joan H. Lefkow today called for better protection for judges.

She also asked lawmakers to repudiate recent "gratuitous attacks" on the judiciary by commentators such as Pat Robertson and by some members of Congress.

"In the age of mass communication, harsh rhetoric is truly dangerous," Lefkow said. "Fostering disrespect for judges can only encourage those that are on the edge, or the fringe, to exact revenge on a judge who ruled against them."

link here

What a bunch it unimformed folks you all are. Galloway didn't even address the charges he just gave a blank statement that he was innocent.

Here's what the center left newspaper the independent had to say about Jihad George:

http://enjoyment.indepen...s/story.jsp?story=520943
I'm Not the Only One by George Galloway
In step with the strongman
By Johann Hari
Published : 14 May 2004

It is not the allegations that he was being paid by Saddam Hussain - soon to
be settled in the libel courts - that will destroy George Galloway. No, it
is this book. In this strange, repetitive little manifesto - marketed as an
autobiography by in fact a short and incoherent rant - Galloway does not
just shoot himself in the foot; he machine-guns his own legs to pieces.
Galloway has never before had to give a sustained account of his attitudes
towards the Ba'athist regime in Iraq. To his credit, he opposed Saddam's
tyranny in the 1980s when the Americans supported the dictator and his acts
of genocide. But - like so much of the Left - when the Americans switched
sides, so did he. Hatred of American power appears to be his primary motive,
rather than any positive left-wing values of his own.
I have often wondered how he reconciled his shift - from anti-Saddam to
desperately trying to rescue his regime. Now we now. Unlike the vast
majority of those who opposed the recent war, he has crossed over into
blatant, full-throated apologism for dictatorship. Initially, he tries to
keep up the pretence that he consistently opposed Saddam. He claims that
when he saluted Saddam with the words, "Sir, I salute your courage, your
strength and your indefatigability", he was in fact addressing "the 23
million Iraqis, not their President." If you wanted to salute the Iraqi
people, Georgewhy do it in front of a man who had just murdered over 100,000
of them?
The early chapters are filled with clouds of hazy Lennonist idealism, with
vague talk of 'justice' and (with no irony) the declaration that "My flag is
red, my country is the future." This is all unconvincing. When Saddam
arrives in Galloway's story, however, we begin to hear the MP's authentic
voice.
The extent of totally discredited Ba'athist propaganda on display here is
staggering. All those who, in the past, have denied that Galloway has
mutated into a Saddamist will simply have to recant when they read this
book. For example, Galloway actually refers to the Shi'ites Saddam murdered
in the 1980s as "a fifth column" who actively undermined the Iraqi war
effort in the interests of their countryís enemy." Nobody outside Saddamís
squalid regime used this terminology; it was purely a justification for the
mass slaughter of the dictator's enemies. It has been extensively documented
that very few Iraqis supported Iran. They were killed because they opposed
Saddam, not because they backed Iran, and Galloway must know it.
How about the passage where Galloway defends Saddam's claim to Kuwait,
describing the province as "clearly a part of the greater Iraqi whole stolen
from the motherland by perfidious Albion"? What about the fact that Galloway
repeatedly refers to Saddam's statements and actions as coming from "the
Iraqis", as if Saddam was their legitimate representative rather than their
oppressor? For example, he says that in the First Gulf War, "I made my stand
with Iraq." No you didn't, George. You stood with Saddam; conscript Iraqis -
most in their teens - were being sent to be slaughtered in the name of an
invasion they did not support.
Take a look at Galloway's statement that, "In my experience none of the
Ba'ath leaders have displayed any hostility to Jews." This beggars belief:
the Baíathists had publicly hanged Jews, and the Iraqi newspapers (all
Ba'ath-sanctioned) were filled with insane ranting against global Jewry. In
all his many visits to Saddam's Iraq, did he not pick up a single newspaper?
Or how about Galloway's claim that Saddam's mass murder of democrats, Kurds
and other anti-Saddam forces in 1991 was a "civil war" that "involved
massive violence on both sides"? Again, only Ba'athists have ever used this
language or narrative. The reality is very different. In 1991, a vicious
tyranny exterminated its enemies. For Galloway to claim that two morally
equivalent sides were simply fighting it out is staggering: he is
equidistant between a poisoner and the medical crew waving an antidote.
Every single criticism of Saddam is quickly relativized in this way. When
Galloway is shown the vast scale of Saddam's palaces, he replies, "Our own
head of state has a fair bit of real estate herself". Yes, but British
people are not - to use Galloway's words - "dying like flies" on the streets
outside. The most bizarre example of Galloway's moral relativism is when he
says, "Saddam was a ruthless and cruel man who thought little of signing the
death warrants of even close comrades. In this regard he was little
different to the leaders of most regimes: we just don't know it in our own
countries yet." As if Tony Blair is about to start gassing the SWP and the
Tories. As if George Bush is going to start building mass graves in
California.
There are even large slabs of praise for Saddam. "Just as Stalin
industrialized the Soviet Union, so on a different scale Saddam plotted
Iraqís own Great Leap Forward," he says, and amazingly, this isnít a
criticism. "He managed to keep his country together until 1991. Indeed, he
is likely to have been the leader in history who came closest to creating a
truly Iraqi national identity, and he developed Iraq and the living, health,
social and education standards of his own people."
He adds a few paragraphs later, "Democracy is not a panacea and the benefits
of the Westminster model are often oversold in relation to Third World
countries." Tony Benn describes him on the book's cover as "one of the
finest democrats of his generation", even though Galloway has openly
supported an anti-democratic coup in Pakistan and stressed the importance of
"holding [developing] countries together" over democratic rule.
On and on the praise and excuses for Saddam continue. The dictator "may have
been a killer but he was not a thief" ñ a statement that will be shocking to
Iraqis whose wealth was pillaged by Saddam for decades. Perhaps the most
obscene statement of all come when Galloway libels the Arabs he claims to
love. "A majority of Arabs and Muslims [believe] the good Saddam did was
more important than the many debits." In Iraq - the Arab country that had to
endure Saddam's rule - fewer than 5% of people think he did a good job or
want him back. "Over time I came to love Iraq as a man loves a woman," he
declares. Well, by reciting Ba'athist propaganda you certainly screwed them,
George.
His attitude towards the Palestinians is similarly destructive. Like him, I
am disgusted by the 36-year Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank and
want it to end immediately. But I believe the solution is two states: a safe
Palestine next to a safe Israel. Galloway is too cowardly to explicitly
oppose a two-state solution, but his wild rhetoric suggests he seeks the
very opposite of peace - the destruction of Israel itself, an impossible,
loathsome aspiration that is condemning both Palestinians and Israelis to
eternal war. For example, he describes the whole of Israel - not just the
illegal outposts on the Occupied Territories - as "the West's settler-state
sentinel"; how could such a state ever be acceptable? How could it ever
deserve to exist? He never mentions the ideal of two states in this book -
not once.
He even skirts very close to praising the tactic of suicide bombing which -
quite apart from deliberately targeting civilians (often children) and
therefore constituting a crime against humanity - has been a disaster for
Palestinians themselves. "Virtually alone of all the Arab dictators,"
Galloway notes with a moist twinkle, "Saddam's endless protestations of
fidelity to the Palestinian cause were sincere and, as the families of the
martyred and wounded know, he put Iraq's money where his mouth was." Saddam
paid young Palestinians to blow themselves and innocent Israelis up. Yep,
what a hero. What a friend to the Palestinians. What fidelity.
Galloway's sophistry about Israel is clear when he imagines a conversation
with an elderly Palestinian who laments that Israel is full of people "who
had houses of their own in Brooklyn, London or wherever". No mention of,
say, Poland or Germany - Galloway pointedly evades the main reasons why the
state of Israel was created - or the 800,000 Jews ethnically cleansed from
Arab countries in the years that followed. No supporter of Palestinian
national self-determination should promote this kind of disingenuity - only
when both sides understand the others' reasons for being in the Middle East
can there be peace.
I was intrigued to discover how Galloway's psyche became like this. How did
a working class lad from Dundee turn into a dictator-saluting,
anti-democratic monster? Yet the autobiographical elements of this book are
so Karen Carpenter-thin that it's very hard to find out. He talks about
randomly meeting a representative of the Palestinians in the early 1970s,
and visiting the Territories for the first time in 1976; that's pretty much
the sum of his explanation.
His failure to describe much of his own life is a shame, because there are
many, many controversial episodes that it would be intriguing to see
Galloway account for. Like the time he was accused of misusing funds of the
charity War on Want, a charge he was absolved of when he explained that
staying in luxury hotels for a charity committed to combating third world
poverty was a legitimate expense. Or his on-going struggle with the Charity
Commission over the fund he set up for Iraqi children - a fund he proceeded
to use for political activities and trips.
He lambasts "the Charity Commission's politically inspired witch-hunt" - a
reasonable investigation into his fund-raising - with more vehemence than he
ever musters for Saddam's genocide or the ethnic cleansing of the Marsh
Arabs, which is never mentioned in the book. Indeed, if this tome was your
sole evidence, you would assume that the British Labour Party and the
Charity Commission were Satanic tyrannies, while the Ba'ath Party and
countless other dictatorships were basically decent with a few
uncharacteristic lapses.
Some of the problems the book describes - like horrifying global
inequalities - are very real, but Galloway's solution - a proliferation of
neo-Stalinist dictators - would make them even worse. Indeed, Galloway
presents a recipe for global famine: the supression of all markets and the
conversion of the world into an immense Cuba (Fidel is "not a dictator",
apparently), declaring that "capitalism" is the greatest mass murderer in
all history, quite dwarfing Hitler's genocide."
Reading this tiny book (more a pamphlet really) in one short sitting made me
feel as though I was trapped in a lift with a crack-smoking Stalin. Galloway
approvingly cites a description of him from the Guardian as a "left-wing
Lawrence of Arabia." It's more astute than he realises. Lawrence stood with
Arab tyrants too, arguing that Arabs were too stupid and culturally backward
to govern themselves, and were temperamentally suited to "strong men". So
does Galloway. No George, you're not the only one. If only ...

Interesting.

Doc #187

It's too bad you decided to post the entire Hari column - us "uninformed folks" use the links to visit the sites so we don't clog up our comments area.

Here is a rebuttal to Hari's review of Galloway's book which provides actual quotes from the book, and makes Hari look - well - dishonest.

Media Lies

Thursday, May 27, 2004
Johann Hari on George Galloway

In a recent review of George Galloway's new book, Johann Hari has resorted to dissembling, distortion and extreme Zionist propaganda to produce an incoherent, childish rant. How come?

There could hardly be a more fair-minded commentator on Harry's Place than Johann Hari. Not to damn him with faint praise, then, I'll also add that he is one of the more intelligent supporters of the war - and, let's be honest, the pro-war camp desperately needs intelligent support. However, having read his venomous review of George Galloway's book I'm Not the Only One, I remember that everyone's political honesty has limits. Wish fulfillment abounds in most political analysis, and you could hardly find a more compelling example of this than in Johann's review.

**more including excerpts from Galloway's book compared to what Hari wrote...**

I'm inclined to agree with those who choose to quote accurately rather than those who paraphrase.

By the way, did you actually see Galloway's testimony to the Senate? I wonder which version you saw by your comment that he just gave a "blank statement that he was innocent." Maybe I watched the unedited, long version because that's not what I saw.

How The Guardian (London) depicted Galloway's Tuesday kick-butt performance (keep in mind our mainstream media has basically blanketed the whole event with silence:
Britain's Galloway Turns Into Media Hero

Thursday May 19, 2005 8:31 PM

AP Photo LLP117

By JILL LAWLESS

Associated Press Writer

LONDON (AP) - There is usually no love lost between George Galloway and the British press.

But after the maverick lawmaker's blistering performance before a U.S. Senate committee this week in which he excoriated the Bush administration over Iraq, not even his biggest critics could contain their grudging admiration.

``Galloway: the man who took on America,'' ran a headline in The Independent newspaper on Thursday.

Galloway's combative appearance Tuesday before senators who accused him of taking kickbacks from Saddam Hussein enhanced his status as folk hero among his supporters.

The lawmaker is known, even in the highly articulate world of British politics, for his memorable turns of phrase. On Tuesday, he called the panel of senators a ``lickspittle Republican committee'' and accused them of ``the mother of all smoke screens.''

Upon his return Wednesday, he was given a standing ovation by hundreds of people at a rally in London.

``He blasted the whole of the U.S. Senate,'' said Abdul Khaliq Mian, a member of Respect, the anti-war party founded by Galloway.

Galloway's no-holds-barred testimony won widespread praise in a country where many accuse Prime Minister Tony Blair's government of taking a supine approach to relations with the United States.

``In one hour, George Galloway has shown how to do what a succession of British ministers ... have conspicuously failed to do: to stand up to American bullying and mendacity,'' reader Andy Bailey wrote in a letter to the editor of the Guardian.

Last week, the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs investigation subcommittee released documents that it said showed that Galloway and other international figures received valuable oil allocations - in Galloway's case, allegedly 20 million barrels' worth between 2000 and 2003 - from Saddam as a reward for opposition to U.N. sanctions on Iraq.

In his testimony in Washington, Galloway vehemently denied the accusations and accused the committee of maligning him before giving him a chance to defend himself.

``Now I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer, you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice,'' Galloway told committee chairman Sen. Norm Coleman.

Even observers skeptical of Galloway's belligerent manner and talent for self-promotion acknowledged the skill of his hard-hitting attack.

The Times marveled at Galloway's ``gift of the Glasgow gab, a love of the stage and an inexhaustible fund of self-belief.''

Galloway's testimony was also picked up by the Arab press, with Egypt's pro-government Al-Ahram newspaper giving front-page treatment to his declaration that he had met Saddam ``exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld.''

A former factory worker and amateur boxer, the pugnacious Glaswegian nicknamed ``Gorgeous George'' has spent decades honing his man-of-the-people image.

In 1994 he told Saddam: ``Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability.'' Galloway later said he had been referring to the Iraqi people, not their leader.

As a left-leaning Labour legislator, he opposed sanctions and then military action against Iraq. He was expelled from the party in 2003 after urging British soldiers not to fight.

He responded by launching his anti-war party and running again for Parliament, unseating Labour lawmaker Oona King in the London constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow on May 5.

``I think I won the battle of public opinion and I am going to continue my work,'' Galloway told The Associated Press on Wednesday. ``My battle continues to try and force the British government to withdraw our soldiers from Iraq, where they should never have been, where too many have been killed and where they are in grave danger.''

I stand corrected. The article I just submitted is how AP covered the story.

It's "shoot the messenger" time where Galloway is concerned. Whether the man used good judgment in his public statements in the past (obviously, his remarks went over the top at times) isn't our issue as Americans.

Galloway is a revolutionary, like Zapata, Lenin, Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez, Malcolm X, Ortega, Mandela...even the neo-cons themselves are revolutionaries. Like all of them, Galloway sometimes uses polemical rhetoric to make his points and thus infuriates the power structure. History will judge him. We need not do so now.

In his Senate testimony, Galloway stuck to the facts. When he said to Coleman, "I was right and you were wrong (about Iraq)," he was simply right, and his eloquence reminded me of Churchill (who could go over the top at times himself, and like Galloway, made countless enemies along the way).

The lesson here is, "Don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like his message." It isn't about Galloway. It's about Bush.

RLM #192 -

I love you. Right on.

Xymphora poimnts out :

The Senate website dealing with the "fake oil for food scandal" has all the "witness" testimonies available for download in PDF format except......George Galloway's.

Here's the original link to the Senate website.

I have cached it, in case it changes.

There isn't a whole lot you have to say about the speech. It speaks for itself. And it's out in the air waves reverberating. At the same time that the failure in Iraq is becoming impossible to disguise. It is absolutely normal for these people to try and shoot the messenger. They always do. All sides. It won't do any good in this case.

I agree with Bob about the truth and I have a feeling we will be experiencing more of it. The thing we don't know for sure yet is if the pendulum has swung far enough in the direction of the lies. When lies equal death, I would presume that is far enough.

These criminals are not the ultimate power. The collective has an almost cosmic power, if you will, of its own. The more we concentrate on the truth, all of us everywhere we go, the better our chances are. I kind of feel like the time has come to really dig in. We should try and be as honest with ourselves and others as we can.

http://story.news.yahoo....werbeforeaproterrorbully

reads:

PUNY POLS COWER BEFORE A PRO-TERROR BULLY

SOMEBODY, please inject our senators with a heavy dose of testosterone.

Maybe then they'll be able to deal with thugs and bullies like George Galloway.

Across the Atlantic, Galloway is sometimes referred to as a member of the British Parliament. But others call this lefty lackey for butchers "the MP for Baghdad Central."

So it was yesterday that the arrogant, Saddam-loving bully stood before Congress. Speaking with an accent that was equal parts Mike Myers and Baghdad Bob, he administered a sound public thrashing of all things American.

He insulted our administration. He decried the war against terror.

And Galloway steadfastly refused to answer directly a single question about the ways he might have profited from terror.

It gets worse.

As he hijacked Congress to unleash his outrageous, insulting tirade, our senators did not pipe up.

Rather, they assumed the look of frightened little boys caught with pants around their ankles, nervously awaiting punishment.

Galloway's love of greedy and bloodthirsty tyrants dates back to his days as a local official in Scotland. He flew the flag of Yasser Arafat's Palestine over his hometown of Dundee.

A decade ago, he told the murderous Saddam Hussein, "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength and your indefatigability."

His loyalty was richly repaid, according to a Senate investigation of the oil-for-food program — which acted like the United Nations' piggybank for bribery.

Galloway was said to be rewarded by Saddam under that program with millions of barrels of oil he bought at sweetheart rates. And then, says the Senate, he laundered the profits through his charity, Mariam Appeal — which raised money to help a 4-year-old Iraqi girl fight leukemia.

It was strange that the Senate committee members seemed taken aback when Gal- loway launched his blistering attack against the war that toppled his main man.

Staring at committee chairman Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), he said, "Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong, and 100,000 people have paid with their lives — 1,600 of them American soldiers."

He weaved, dodged and went on the offensive whenever his role in the oil-for-food scandal was raised.

It's time to take the gloves off, senators.

Kick this viper where it hurts.

By ANDREA PEYSER
Columnist of the Year

Bob Bilse is exactly right. The truth stands on its own. Any attempt to dilute it by attacking the teller is an ad hominem (against the man) argument. Galloway cannot be wrong just because somebody doesn't like him.

Reactionary men come in different packages. Some are revered by historians (Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela), others are reviled (Huey Long, Malcolm X). The point is, history has to decide. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, and one's revolutionary hero is another's contemptible knave.

Memo to Andrea Peyser: Galloway did NOT weave or dodge regarding the oil-for-food scandal. At the outset he denied ever accepting "a nickel" from anyone. It's right there in the record.

He THEN proceeded to call the oil-for-food hearings the "mother of all smokescreens," meaning they were intended to distract attention from the invasion of Iraq. She calls that invasion of a sovereign country a war, but no war has ever been declared...except on terrorism, which is a tactic, not a person, and which had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq, besides. Go to your room, Andrea.

War, my ass.

That was a goddammed coup d'etat.

You all seem to know Mr. Galloway so very well. Are you all members of his Respect Coalition then?

Roger, speaking for myself, I don't know George Galloway at all. I never heard of the Respect Coalition until yesterday. All of which is utterly beside the point. The issue isn't Galloway or any coalition...it isn't you...and it isn't me.

It's the Bush administration. All Galloway did was point out that the oil-for-food issue, though not unimportant, was being used by Congress as a smokescreen to cover up the administration's lies about Iraq, about its connection to 9/11, and the phony intelligence Bush and Blair relied on (the failure of which they have never explained to us).

I agree with Galloway 100% that this is what the Congressional hearings are about. You might disagree. But the Respect Coalition, whatever one thinks about it, has nothing to do with Bush or Blair. It's irrelevant. I'm sure you're introducing it as a subtle attack on Galloway, which is nothing more or less than shooting a messenger.

Hi, Brad #197 -

"thugs and bullies like George Galloway"

"they assumed the look of frightened little boys caught with pants around their ankles, nervously awaiting punishment"

Note: TRUTH renders the messenger larger, stronger and more frightening than the guilty parties themselves, who sit quivering and silent when confronted squarely by TRUTH!

Who are you, Roger? Do you know Mr. Galloway? What are you a member of?

So-called "Brad" #197.

Why use a fake name to send a fake message?

None of the rest of us do. A nickname is fair dinkum dude, a fake is not.

Besides a childish tirade void of facts is something of a yawner.

Roger, Colin/Chas, et. al.

Look, we do NOT care what kind of person Galloway is in -your- country, world, government, etc. What we -care- about is that someone had the balls to stand up to the morons running the show here in the U.S.

For the record, he EMPHATICALLY denied receiving -any- MONEY, OIL, OR PERKS OF ANY KIND from Saddam (the accusation) or ANY "direct" means with oil-for-food. He -did- admit to getting money from IRAQI businessmen in the form of donations to his charity, but that hardly has -anything- to do with the "oil for food scandal". If those businessmen were in their FULL LEGAL right to have the oil they did and profit from it like they did, then NO ONE has -anything- to say to Galloway about it, period, end of story.

Is Galloway a dick? maybe.. do I care? not really.. he's being accused of crimes he says he didn't commit.. he -also- pointed out that the "evidence" the U.S. Government has against him has been PROVED to be FAKE (for all but one document that claims to be new, but no one has seen?). You can't say "hey, some people knowingly lied about you and said you were guilty. Even though you proved you were innocent, we're gonna call you guilty again.. prove -again- how the fake evidence shouldn't be used".. sound unbelievably ignorant? Welcome to the new U.S. (or, as we lovingly call it, the NeoCon Nightmare)

Again.. unless you can offer some kind of RATIONAL reason why we shouldn't applaud his PERFORMANCE and MESSAGE to the U.S. Senate, please shut up and go away. His past, history, mistakes, crappy soul, what have you, are IRRELAVANT to the POINT of this thread. No one here is saying he should be sainted, we're simply saying "damn, it's about time someone put their boot squarely up Congress' ass".

I agree, RLM. I'm reading a lot of defamatory things about Galloway from the apologists, but precious little about his incredibly well-articulated, "BLISTERING", speech, and the points it conveys.

Is the only way to debate what he has to say is to claim that he is not qualified to say it? That's an old trick, a smokescreen to drive the debate away from his point. When a person is correct, he is correct, whether he is Saint John The Baptist, or John Gotti.

The truth is always the truth, no matter how many tricks you use to try to bury it.

It's been said one can tell about a person by the enemies he keeps. Who are Galloway's enemies?

The primary witness against Galloway has turned out to be Ahmad Chalabi, whom the United States doesn't even trust any more. Other enemies of Galloway's are people who support the invasion of Iraq, and call him a traitor for making poorly considered friendly overtures to Saddam Hussein. On that basis, Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush, Sr. are also traitors, because they used poor judgment in befriending Saddam.

I would trust your man Galloway before I would ever trust Rumsfeld, Cheney, or Bush. Galloway tells the truth and lets the chips fall where they may. Our leaders lie and let the chips fall into Halliburton's pockets.

Have a bloody nice day, chaps.

Good one, RLM #207. That nails it as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry!!!!!

I posted a link in another thread here to a story where a former Reagan Administration Official has called for the Impeachment of Bu$h (link here) as the only way to get America's reputation back.

Colin, I know what your are your simply a racist I am from Britain and I have seen your type I bet you support the war against brown people yet it infuriates you when you see all the Iraqi asylum seekers entering Britain but idiots like you never stop to think how many Iraqi asylum seekers did we have before the sanctions were imposed on Iraq in the nineties. You’re an extreme right winger why don’t you admit it

I am a British borne Muslim and let me tell you I don’t think a single person in the world would have gone to fight America because of Galloway’s appeal for the Arabs to rise, are you serious suggesting that borders of Iraq are flooding with Arab fighters due to Mr. Galloway’s appeal, amazing I thought your stupidity had limits. I am surprised no one has picked up on your extreme hidden right wing views I know you didn’t vote labour not because you have already told us but because labour supporters did not support the war only their leaders did.

You say that the French are cowards well let me tell you because I travel around world but Britain is a joke around the world simply seen as a poodle. Ask yourself who is braver a country who sticks up to a super power and goes against them or a country who simply follows the super power like a poodle which Britain seems to do always. Have you forgotan the meaning of the word coward because I tell you one thing there is nothing brave about bombing people from 30,000 feet above the ground which is what is usually done in Iraq.

Finally I would like to say to all the Americans I am so glad I found this site because I didn’t think people like you guys existed the only view we see of Americans on TV us war mongering idiots who seem to be programmed by fox news.

Finally don’t believe the crap about Galloway if anyone had anything on this guy it would have been out there a long time ago, a question to Colin again if Galloway was such a bad MP why the hell was he reelected over and over again, and now when he was chucked out of the labour party and Blair thought he finally go rid of him he goes and pulls of a miracle and turns over a majority of over 10,000 running practically as an independent ( Respect Party), and a lot of you Americans wont be aware but the first thing the bbc journalist said to him was not congratulations but “ are you proud of dislodging one of the few black female MP’s” over a 100 complaints to the bbc about this yet they still defended the journalist. That is what Mr. Galloway is up against so always research anything you hear about him.

Hi all,

I think Galloway rocks!!!!!!! He is the breavest and the most sincete, speaking from his heart person I have ever seen in a long time. Bravo Galloway!!!! I am ashamed to be an american for what these neo cons have dont to america and to iraq. Isareal is controling what goes on in america! I am not to proud to be the an american because the likes of sharon drive drive our policy.. our seantors kiss isareali ass or they are toast.. cheers

And Fuck this colin bastard.. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

COLIN.. (or Chas)... If I was hiding behind a name... why would I link my name to my website?? - and why do you have two names?? Are you a hypocrite by any chance??

Of course... when you can't win an arguement... you can also take aim at "literacy" instead (an area where I'm certainly not lacking) or some other irrelevant factor.

Incidentally Colin (or Chas.. or whatever other name you wish to use!!)... I'm British too... so your advice to me regarding an American-literacy-school only shows your ignorance about those you're so quick to judge and pass opinion on.

Colin... quote #107 (your "proof") doesn't contain proof against Galloway... it just confirms that he was against British policy towards Ireland and against the war with Iraq. If that salute made you cry... that's your issue... if you can't deal with diplomacy that's your problem.

Oh... AND... it was nice of you to forget what Galloway said after saluting Saddam... You know.. everything you miss out so that we get your one-sided view. --- (After complimenting Saddam on being a powerful leader.. Galloway blasted Saddam for his Tyrannical/Dictatorial stance and the suffering caused.. of course in your version Colin.. I'm sure that never happened.)

Colin (or Chas) You'll need to do better than that... we're used to harder evidence than hearsay... and "Oh my... he saluted Saddam... he must be in cohorts with him." just doesn't cut it.

When you can stop making uneducated assumptions that lead to you making false accusations against people you don't know... you may then have something to bring to the debate.

Colin... please chill out... Your anger is effecting your ability to argue in a sensible and coherent way. (trolling, insults, etc. are not signs of someone holding themselves well in argument.)

Being ignorant doesn't win arguments.
Losing your temper doesn't win arguments.
Insulting people doesn't win arguments.
Making blatantly inaccurate assumptions about others here doesn't win arguments.
Providing a story and intentionally omitting the details that contradict your opinion.. doesn't win arguments.

Colin... when you have evidence... rather than YOUR interpretation of political events... come back to us.

Thanks to Safdar for a perspective on British politics that would never appear in our media. And thanks to Brad Friedman for helping Safdar understand that Fox Network and CNN don't represent the American people.

American courts, in substantial part, descend ideologically from the British courts.

The "common law" mentioned in our US Constitution means "british law". What this means is that we follow and look to british law in our courts as the original foundation of our civil law.

This applies to tort and contract law specifically. Even to this day english court cases are cited in our hornbook law books and in our published cases.

Of course I am quite mindful that we parted from the regal structure and opted for a people based law at other junctures. But the point is that our civil law began with the common law of england.

That being said, Galloway won a libel suit against those who slandered his name with this oil for food fallacy.

It was proven to be a fallacy in the common law courts. And take note that since Galloway commenced the lawsuit, the burden of proof was his to bear.

What that means is that he had ample evidence to show that the rehashed and warmed over crap the senate committee regurgitated was stinking.

I am amazed at the brain-dead posters here who do not see the importance of this factor in the public record, who claim to know britain, and who, like the rank senators harassing the victim of slander and libel, still like to sniff and savor the stink.

Haven't seen the name "Colin/Chas" here since Ann Rice pulled his pants down in #177.

HH # 212
'Round up the usual scapegoats!'
---
Isareal is controling what goes on in america! I am not to proud to be the an american because the likes of sharon drive drive---

So if not for Israel the pretentious leader in chief bush would be a "kinder, gentler, more compassionate liar". The poor hapless neocons are just putty, pity.

I have been reading through this blog and was both pleased and frustrated by what I read.

I watched the video on George Galloway's testimony and I too found myself so happy that he had the balls to say what he said to the congress. He managed to speak what was on my mind and it is a breath of fresh air to me, as I was beginning to think that my own personal sentiments on this topic were not shared by anybody who could manipulate the tide of change for the future. I am equally happy to learn that my sentiments are shared by American people as demonstrated by your postings here in this blog. I want to say to you that it is hard for any of us to make a black or white situation of what has occured.

Today there are so many channels of communication and so many biases, some of which we are not entirely aware of, that make situations like this confusing. One thing is for certain, however, we must ensure we protect the medium of the internet at least, for this is the only means (at the moment) where we can really make our voices heard and to really make waves in the future of the world. Above all else, I would encourage people in blogs like these to post their opposing arguments, some of the points that Colin/Chas has brought to our attention are useful to help balance our views on Mr Galloway.

However, I do not support the negative way that Colin/Chas has presented his arguments to this forum. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion Colin, so are the rest of these people on this blog.

The reason why people are taking exception to your comments are not because they fear an opposing argument, not because they are blind or stupid or whatever name you used to deny their intelligence and insight in your posts. It is because you blasted through the metaphorical door of this blog and fire-branded the topic with your own ruthless opinion with never any intent on listening to the views of others. You were only interested in beating down any opposition to your own opinion.

You may want to accuse people on this blog of doing the same to your opinion, but take a look at your postings that initiated this response. In your posts you choose to attack people that have different approaches to you, you choose to insult their intelligence while hammering home what you consider to be the only consistent argument worthy of reading and understanding. If you analyse the aggressive approach you took to this discussion and you will discover that you have brought this response upon yourself and therefore have no legs to stand on with such argument.

Perhaps you, and others who have responded to you, should consider the reason for your involvement in this discussion. A discussion, a dialogue, if you will, consists of the communication between more than one person. A dialogue of more than one person, can often mean more than one viewpoint. If you were looking for a discussion, as you claim to be then you would know that there are more people in this blog than you alone. There are going to be views that are different and/or disagree with your own. If you did not want people to attack your viewpoint, do not attack theirs, if you cannot handle opposing viewpoints without the ability to argue fairly, rationally and without assumptions as to the levels of intelligence of those you converse with, then I see no gains for you or for anyone (for that matter) to engage in an internet blogging discussion like this one.

Colin/Chas your views are important, but it is the delivery of them that are equally, if not more important. I find it a shame that you have let yourself down by ruining a perfectly reasonable argument by using the tactic of undermining and insulting the opinions and wit of others. Had you not resorted to this, the people on this blog would respect your views even if they disagreed with them.

I know that this is turning into a novel and I am sorry that this is diverting away from the topic at hand but I find it important to try and encourage many viewpoints in order to allow people to reach their own conclusions with a full range of information. I have great respect and pride for the sentiment that you have all expressed here over the last few days, I too feel a sense of relief, that somewhere the pressure has been released. But then, lets also be realistic and balanced here, we all know that Mr Galloway is by no means a clean slate, and we should be wary to taint him with dark colours or paint him with the bright colours of blind optimism.

I am a firm believer that balance is the real key, and striking a balance between argument and counter argument is the goal to shoot for.

Anyway, I will end this rambling now!

Thanks all!!

Emm

Emm #219
A fine ramble!

Wonderful, Emm. Hope you keep talking and keep the debate civilized. I especially object to calling opponents Nazi Fascists in the midst of the attempted dialogue. We don't really know much about these people. Or even if they believe what they say.
We shouldn't be afraid and feel threatened by other people's ideas. That's what has led to these religious, ideological wars. You might say that these ideas can lead to harmful actions but that is impossible to determine in discussions like these.

If a person is confident in his opinions then he has no need to defend them in an overemotional hostile way. We can also use this an opportunity to learn the fine art of self control when our buttons are pushed. How to defend our positions in a successful way.

Gorgeous George. He’s in many ways an utterly reprehensible character; friend of dictators, self-aggrandising, supporter of a lifestyle seemingly out of proportion to his income, frequenter of the libel courts, stirrer of racial tensions, etc etc.
Mr Galloway who in the 90s went to Baghdad and interviewed Saddam Hussein, famously using the words, "Sir, I salute your strength, your courage and your indefatigability". Remember ClareShort?
So self-righteous, anti-war and resigning. Sounds
good until until you dig a little deeper. Go back a few years and there she is, ranting and whining for a war in Kosovo. All based on the EXACT same genocide as Saddam. Why the schizo, pick 'n' choose piety? Because certain Euros care about Europe and play Eurotrash games for American dirty work. Only YOU were worthy of two world wars. "Let Saddam run his course and slaughter at will." Ain't your problem until Hitler blitzes :O

Hey darkhelmat i think you'l find Galloway like he said has a better record of opposition to saddam then most other politicians in the UK and US and unlike most of them he opposed him while Saddam was The west's biggest ally and i think you'l find thats exactly when saddam committed his biggest crimes whilest he was the west's ally such as the gasing of kurds and invasions of Iran.

Think his record on human rights all though still disgusting got about 100 times better after he becames the west's enemy. If you are from the uk check out the Sunday times a pro war murdoc newspaper highlighting all of Galloways opposition to saddam back from the eighties. and early nineties.

Hey all.

Darkhelmat, while I have read similar reports of what you have mentioned those claims need to be taken with a pinch of salt. For example the quote you cited above "Sir, I salute your strength, your courage and your indefatigability" was, according to Galloway a comment directed at the Iraqi people in general. Because none of us can know for definite his intentions, without being there to consider the context to understand all the undelying meanings, I dont believe we can use one quote such as this to discredit his character.

Most of the sources that I have found who like to portray Mr Galloway in a negative way appear to be written by those who tend to support the status quo. George Galloway's ideas are a threat to how the world is run at the moment.

Our world is currently run by governments that are far removed from their people, a lot of people today do not feel represented. I certainly do not feel that there exists a party today that appeals to my personal ideas about the way I would like to be represented as an adult in British society. Our world is currently run by corporations not governments. Governments act as servants loyal to corporations not their people. Or more precisely, governments are servants to profit not people.

This is something that RESPECT is looking to change. I can tell you something now: the current powers of today are not going to like his [Galloway's] ideas. They challenge the very fibre of what runs through the corruption of our governments in this day and age. Of course there are going to be less than flattering comments about Galloway's character, he is trying to change what these people are not willing to change, and for that simple reason, there will be negative articles written about his character, or questions over his real agenda.

I think it is important to remember that all politicans are human, and if any of us were to have the press investigating our integrity and morality, they are bound to find many incriminating things about our own human mistakes and faults . The press will undoubtedly blow these mistakes and inconsistencies of our actions and character (and we all have those moments), completely out of all proportion and report them completely out of context.

I am not suggesting that the allegations against Galloway in this thread or by the senate are true or false. I am in no position of knowledge to make this judgement. However, I do not think that Galloway or any politican, be they American or British, should ever be excused for certain actions soley on the account that they have made a mistake. I do think that depending on the nature of the error made they must ALWAYS be made accountable to the same code of law that they apparently like to defend and promote.

Based on what I know and understand of the situation, my feelings are that these allegations against Galloway are pitiful compared to the crimes that I have read against the Bush Administration and Blair's government.

If Galloway had said those words publicly to the Iraqi dictator whilst visiting him in Iraq while at the same time opposing Saddams regime, I would also wonder as we all have why the contradiction.

However, consider the context. Do you honestly expect that Galloway, when on his diplomatic visit in Iraq, to wait until he is sat before the dictator before getting out his machine gun and riddling Saddam's body with a few thousand fiery bullets in order to prove to the world his contempt for the regime? Come on people, you must know that the world is not simple black and white like the movies, with an evil 'baddie' and a clean pristine 'goodie'?

The world is riddled with nuances (and bullets), so why must we expect people to move in a straight line towards a given idea or goal? There is so much focus on that one quote from Galloway to Saddam that few people are asking why Galloway had met with Saddam in the first place. From what I gather, in one of the meeting with Saddam, Galloway wanted to convince Saddam to let the UN weapons inspectors back into the country again.

Now when you consider the context of Galloway's visit the quote does not really matter at all. The way that this quote is often cited suggests that Galloway is a close friend of Saddam. This does not appear to me to be the case. Galloway visited in order to persuade a dictator to cooperate with the west, you do not go about this objective by the shoot-first-think-later approach as described above. You strike a rapport with the people you want to persuade in order to persuade them, this is the true DIPLOMATIC approach to politics and a strategy that makes sense in a world, as I said before, riddled with bullets and nuances.

On the other hand I read about the daily slaughter that takes place within Iraq. I hear of the disgusting mistreatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and other places. I hear that the humanitarian case made for the attack on Iraq were based on nothing more than fallacies.

Everyday I hear of more scandals and actions that violate human rights that ultimately trace back to the decisions that our leaders make while sitting comfy in their bunkers of Washington and Downing Street.

And yet, despite all this scandal and bare-faced lies centred around the people that run our country and who we expect to represent us and protect us, and whose decisions for war appear to be based on lining their pockets for profit rather than their concern over the fate of the Iraqi people. Based upon all this above, how can we then look at a man such as George Galloway and then with a few quotes taken out of their context that suggest Galloway had taken a cup of tea with his friend Saddam over a diplomatic meeting, and declare his character as more questionable than the characters of those who would lie to their own people, who send other people's sons out to fight and die in order to wage a war upon another nation on the basis of making a profit??

Now, Mr Galloway is no angel, but nor has he ever pretended to be. I do not think that we should fear his moral character any more than that of those in the Bush Administration or the government of Tony Blair. May I also point out that Mr Galloway is NOT in the same position of authority or power as Mr Blair or Bush, and yet Bush and Blairs moral deficits are obvious and still they remain in power over our lives and over the lives of the Iraqi people. If Bush/Blair were any other leader from Asia or from Africa, they would be declared as tyrants and put before an international body for justice and sentenced as war criminals should be. But they will not be made accountable for their illegal actions because they are above the law due to the fact that they ARE the law. It is about time that people put a change to this situation.

As for the 'frequenter of libel courts' claim, I do not think that this is something that one can question Galloway's character over. This is a comparatively simple matter to the one raised earlier. Galloway had false articles that made serious allegations against him based on false documents and as a result Galloway took them to court. I can hardly criticise a man for standing up for his rights.

Anyway these are my thoughts at this time...

Thanks all!

Emm

SAFDAR,
"check out the Sunday times a pro war murdoc newspaper highlighting all of Galloways opposition to saddam back from the eighties. and early nineties"

I would like to see some. Got any juicy quotes or links dating back to them. I understand that the internet then wasnt what it is now, and I am not expexcting anything. But I would love to see what they said about his anti Sadam stance back then when the USA gave Sadam $1 billoin in aid tied to military spending the year after he gassed the Kurds and $2 billion tied to military spending the next.

Johann Hari said in The Independent:- "To his credit, he opposed Saddam's tyranny in the 1980s when the Americans supported the dictator and his acts of genocide. But - like so much of the Left - when the Americans switched sides, so did he. Hatred of American power appears to be his primary motive, rather than any positive left-wing values of his own."

I was there in the 90s, and I know why George opposed the US policy iof the sanctions (and so I suspect does Johann). It is because those sanctions killed around about 2 million people and because the rationale for those sanctions was based on lies. The following link shows what those sanctions were really about:- Most of the people died of hepatits C, gastroenteritis and other waterborn diseases, and not accidentally. Note carefully the URL. This is the real thing:-

http://www.gulflink.osd....1/950901_511rept_91.html

Iraq had lots of water, but dirty septic water. Water purification plants made the water good for the population. Power plants were needed to drive the water purification plants. Every power plant and every water purification plant was bombed in 1991. Then the parts to repair them were declared "dual use" in the sanctions and denied to Iraq. It was deliberate genicide.

I would just like to say this. I'm an American who lives in Britain, and have long admired Galloway. I was sorry to see the level of opposition to him from some people, who have tried to dampen your enthusiasm by claiming to know more about him than you do. Galloway is a magnificent human being, and if you actually read his book, "I'm not the only one", rather than Johann Hari's biased rant against it, you will find that the man who founded the Respect Party and the man who made that speech in the Senate is worth every ounce of your admiration. Hari has always been pro-war, and will naturally have felt threatened by Galloway's eloquence on the subject.

Also, do not forget that Tony Blair has made a habit of smearing his enemies - he even dragged the name of a 90-year-old woman through the mud because she said unfavourable things about the state of British hospitals. And look at what happened to Dr Kelley. To give you an idea of Blair's veracity (if you should still harbour any doubts about that), he told the press, soon after Dr Kelley's death, that he had "not released his name to the press" prior to his suicide: "most emphatically not!" were his words. But only a few weeks ago, he told the BBC that "I had no other choice but to release Dr Kelley's name." Kelley died because of Blair, let's not forget that. And Galloway is a thorn in Blair's side precisely because he has a sharp memory, and never lets him get away with anything.

It wouldn't come as a surprise to me at all if Blair hadn't asked Bush to help him out of a tight spot by smearing Galloway's name (again - remember, he was already cleared of these charges once!), so that he wouldn't have to face the man in Parliament.

Oh, and the way the press treat Galloway is scandalous. I stayed up for the whole night of the election and saw that spat between Paxman and Galloway - it happened at four in the morning - and Galloway won it hands down. When told, "Are you proud to have defeated the only black woman in parliament?" He replied, quite rightly, "I don't believe that people should be elected or not based simply on the colour of their skin." But I noted, with some dismay, that that soundbite was edited out of all subsequent replays of the argument between them so the BBC journalist wouldn't be made to look like such an idiot - particularly as everyone who knows Galloway at all knows that he is the most liberal, non-racist, "we are all brothers" person on earth.

STAMF,
Sorry I don’t really have any quotes because I just came across the paper at the local gym on Sunday as The Sunday Times is not a paper I would buy it is a Murdock pro war paper the equivalent of the New York Post (same owner) but the article was basically still trying to have a dig at Galloway however the article was trying to analyze Galloway’s claims to opposition to Saddam and it had to admit that he did make very strong statement against the evil saddam dictatorship as far as back in the eighties and that he had even protested outside the Iraqi Embassy in London.

There are officially recorded very strong statements from Galloway made against saddams evil dictatorship after saddam executed the left wing guardian journalist back in 1990 I think, these statement were made in parliament and he used words evil tyranny so there cannot be not doubt his feeling towards him.

My personal opinion is that Galloway is not anti American but more a very pro Palestinian which results in strong statements against Israeli atrocities which then always results in confrontation with the establishment due to the power of the Israeli lobby both in the UK and USA.

Finally lets not forget one thing the following are proven facts, The Christian Science Monitor published documents which they later admitted were forgeries and apologized, The Daily Mail in the UK which is a very right wing paper purchased some documents of a similar nature however before they published them they had forensics done on them and they proved to be fake, now it doesn’t take a genius to work out that someone is trying to smear his name.

By the way I heard the oil for food committee’s website have removed Galloway’s testimony from their website even though all other testimony’s are available in PDF format but his is missing I wonder why……..lol

Hehe. I really want to send the transcripts to them, just to wind them up! LMAO!

The email would say: - Here you go, here is the written documents you say you do not have Have lots of people send them in just to let them know they cannot hide the truth, it's too late. Hah!

George Galloway: the very name makes me sick. “He’s my hero… he’s my hero” – it is pandering to an opportunist, treasonous peddler of lies!

The man is clearly scum. He is the man who calls a person who gasses his own people, “indefatigable…” Yes, Gorgeous George, he is indefatigable… care to guess why? If he is not, guess who is off to the ICJ? And before anyone hastens to talk about his “reasoning” for that speech – I say to you bollocks! This is a speech not aimed at Iraqis – if it was aimed at Iraqis as a whole, address it to them! But you introduce the speech as “Sir…” - that’s third person singular in the English last time I checked, it is not addressed to a whole people! He addressed himself to a single person – how can he be talking to a nation of 29 million people?

He is the man who calls upon British soldiers to become traitors. He’s the man who says it would be “…best to disobey illegal orders” I have news for you George: these orders are not illegal under British law, these orders are not illegal under any common human morality! How can orders to depose a tyrant, a murderer of millions, be considered illegal? Let me guess: you consider the same orders to depose Hitler as illegal, to then? And even if you consider, somehow, that human morality did not call for this action, can I remind you that you are still inciting treason? The orders were duly given by the democratically elected government of the United Kingdom of Great Briton and Northern Ireland – these orders were given in full accordance with our laws. The Attorney General may have taken time to come to a decision on the legality of the war – but he still came to one, and the war was legal according to the senior legal advice of the British government! Will you please stop your amateur law whinging about this? Listen to those who know what they are talking about!

And can I remind you that the man is clearly a fraud. He is a Roman Catholic, yet he finds a sudden urge to defend Arabs when he gets chucked out of the Labour Party. He stands in a mainly Muslim constituency not to benefit them; he does not represent their interests, he represents them purely out of convenience. He represents them purely because it is the easiest way so as to ensure that he has a way of continuing his feud with Blair. I do not like Blair, but at least the man has convictions and will stick by them… Galloway is a chameleon, changing for his personal gain. He opposes them one moment, and suddenly gains very positive pro Iraqi credentials the next. Find your position, and stick to it. Have at least the morale decency to have convictions that you can follow!

And remember, too, this is the man who claims “The fall of the Soviet Union is the greatest catastrophe of my life.” This is the man who claims that the fall of the system that spawned 42 million dead under Stalin, countless more millions under Lenin and the Okharana and all those millions in the gulags is a catastrophe! Does the man have no decency? Can he not show the least bit of awareness for anyone? Or is his support for any one humanitarian cause exclusive of any other belief of the sanctity of human life? The Soviet Union is the system that has put so many millions in chains and shackles, by denying them representation, the system that spawned the most perfect secret police ever with the KGB and Stasi, the system that has so much blood on its hands, and he calls its fall a catastrophe? The man claims those who order the war to Iraq will “burn in Hell in the Hell-fires” and yet those who killed so many more will not? The man has no morals!

And for someone so passionate about the truth, so certain he is representing morality, he manages to produce the most offensive successful election campaign ever seen! His road to Bethnal Green was not a calm one. It was a one in which he gained power by calling “until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem.” He won calling for the extinction of Israel. For a man so opposed to war, a man who has built his modern career on this foundation, he sounds like the MP to Baghdad Central to me. He sounds like a man who has no real grasp of the truth, but who will instead grasp at paper straws so as to see his personal life of luxury continue. Opposed to war, sir? So why not incite genocide on six million people. Those who apparently caused genocide on a people through sanctions will go to Hell; I believe the more pertinent question for you, Gorgeous George, is where will those who abet treason and genocide go? Where will those who have no morals go? After all, those “one million” in Iraq are a tragedy – yet you do not care about calling for the extinction of Israel, for all those more millions who will die? Where will you go, sir? Where will you burn?

“Listen to President Chirac,” you say. Listen to the man who in the name of European Unity says, “Voting ‘no’ against the EU Constitution is a victory for the Anglo-Saxon economic system?” Of course, Mr Chirac, that is the way to build unity. It shows the judgement of the man again.

You are the man who campaigns for social equality. Yet you are the man who claims he cannot work in politics for less than “£150,000!” That is roughly eight times the national average income. That is the money that you need to spread your “pack of lies.” That is the money that you are wheedling out of the gullible and naïve. A campaigner to lessen the gap between the rich and poor: do you have any knowledge to be poor? Or is this another political expediency? Is this another case of you developing concern for you own betterment? Do you believe in true equality? So is the money you got in damages going to those who really need it? Or is it back to Galloway, does it come to you so you can continue to fund your campaign of treason? I say to you, sir, learn to know what it is to truly have morals.

Galloway: unrepentant traitor, abetter of genocide, chameleon, thief and immoral pig: those are the charges that can be levied against you. Those are the accolades you can wear. Hero no more, God most certainly not: criminal and thief, most surely.

#230

Oh my, my! Who's gone and worked himself up and given himself the skitters then?

(I love ALL the posts on this forum but the unthought out ones are the most enjoyable)

Winston,

"You are the man who campaigns for social equality. Yet you are the man who claims he cannot work in politics for less than “£150,000!” That is roughly eight times the national average income. That is the money that you need to spread your “pack of lies.”

Winston, You seem to be saying that Galloway's salary is too high. Since he is not payed more than other parlimentarians, there is no substance in your gripe unless you make the same complaint against all MPs. Personally I think that he is one of the few that give value. One of the few to stand up to the lies. You declare him to be a liar, but he is one of the few to have spoken truth before and after.

"Opposed to war, sir? So why not incite genocide on six million people."

Tut tut... The genocide of Palestinians will not undo Hitlers genocide. The genocide of the Palestinians must stop, and it cant stop while it is still being financed by Bush.

"He is a Roman Catholic, yet he finds a sudden urge to defend Arabs when he gets chucked out of the Labour Party. He stands in a mainly Muslim constituency not to benefit them; he does not represent their interests, he represents them purely out of convenience."

I think his constituency has voted for someone who DOES represent their interests. Clearly they care about the war, or they wouldnt have voted for him. What Bush and Blair did is only in the interests of oil barons.

"How can orders to depose a tyrant, a murderer of millions, be considered illegal?"

Whilst not a murderer of millions, whilst not in the league of Bush and Blair, Sadam was the murderer of hundreds of thousands with his war against Iran and the Kurds. So now, if the purpose of the war was to depose a murderer, why did the same people support him while he was actually doing that murdering. Sadam's record before the first gulf war was much worse than it weas after. Why then was given $1billion in aid tied to military spending. That is the year after he gassed the Kurdish town using chemical weapons supplied by the US and the EU. Why was he given $2billion in "aid" that had to be spent on military equipment the next year.

The answer is of course, that they did not give a shit about the Iraqis. This was not a war for the benefit of Iraqis. It is war to control the worlds oil reserves.

They did not even pretend that justification at the time, if you will remember. The claim was Sadam was a threat to the entire world. By 1993, he was not even a threat to his neighbors.

The only intelligence failure was amongst those who beleived it. Those who had the sense to find out knew it was a lie. A lie repeated ad nauseum.

Dear BRADBLOG,

In your list of evildoers you missed out the most crucial and essential name of all BILL CLINTON. What you Americans and many others need to comprehend is that the more than 1 Million Iraqis of whom 600,000 were infants murdered by the genocidal sanctions that Geroge Galloway refers to were victims of Bill Clinton's imperialist sadism. That Clinton's version of full spectrum dominance reached even further than the Bush gang. That Clinton murdered 2 million people around the world. In Iraq, Sudan, Kurdistan/Turkey, Palestine, East Timor, Indonesia, Serbia, Kosovo, Haiti and on the near-slavery, death squad enforced banana plantations of Latin American countries such as Honduras. While still President Clinton acted as an overt agent of the DOLE/CHIQUITA corporations and their model even launching a trade war...known as a the banana-war, against the USA's closest allies. Attempting to rid Jamaica of the protection we British give their banana industry. In British supermarkets FAIR TRADE bananas are now a standard choice while the produce found in US supermarkets gets there via salvery and death squad terror. I urge everyone reading this to buy a copy of the American Region 1 DVD LIFE & DEBT one of the most important documentaries you will ever see about how we screw the Third World. It is also a testament to the Clinton model of ruthless inhumanity. In many ways Clinton was even worse than the Bush gang because he insisted on nice sounding sensitive words and a charming image while engaging in cruelty that was often even worse than the current criminals.
Howard S Marks
Manchester UK

Stamf has it exactly right about Saddam Hussein. Winston waxes Churchillian (of course) about how awful Saddam is...no argument there. But he lacks Churchill's integrity; he fails to mention that not only Galloway, but Donald Rumsfeld and the first President Bush embraced Saddam...when it served their purposes to do so because Iran seemed the greater evil (and its oil was under the control of ayatollahs).

If you call yourself "Winston," sir, then act like it. We Americans like Galloway's spunk, and his willingness to call a spade a spade. That was the other Winston's great strength, too, which is why Americans liked him (of course, his mother was American, which didn't hurt his chances). If you don't like Galloway, fine...but let us enjoy him for the moment, because he told people off who had it coming, big time.

One more thing. If removing Saddam Hussein from power justifies the Iraq invasion, as you imply, then why wasn't that offered as the reason for the invasion when we invaded? Instead, we heard about WMD (false), a link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam (false), a link to 9/11 (false), an attempt by Iraq to buy uranium from Niger (false), then, when all else failed, "Well, we got Saddam!" Your namesake, with all his eloquence, wouldn't even have tried to sell that bullshit to us.

Winston,
So I guess you believe the war was all about weapons of mass destruction or spreading freedom or may be both I guess its got nothing to do with oil that’s just me being silly.

Cannot believe even now there are people out there who think it had nothing to do with oil amazing when we have people of that kind of intelligence no wonder our leaders feel they can get away with anything. If the war was about getting rid of an evil dictator then why do the UK/USA still carry on supporting the Uzbek regime financially and with military aid, a regime that boils opponents to death. Many people will be aware Blair even sacked the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murry for speaking out against atrocities, so much for spreading freedom, how about freedom for Jordan, Saudi, and Egypt but we no this will never happen because these are friends of the USA

Look at history and you will see countries only invade and fight wars for national interest be it economic or security related, and that fact has not changed only thing that has changed that populations of the west will no longer accept slaughter in their name, this is why our leaders now always have to come up with crap to feed us and luckily for them there are plenty of fools like Winston who believe it or just convince themselves its true.

I would love it if dictators around the world saw the state Saddam is in now and think to themselves that they should start treating their people properly or they may end up like that but we know what they will be thinking in fact is that it don’t matter how your treat your population as long you stay onside with the USA you will be fine and that’s why we still have dictators still running most of the middle east.

Winston,

I find black and white statements you made such as; "The man is clearly scum." and "And can I remind you that the man is clearly a fraud." or "Galloway: unrepentant traitor, abetter of genocide, chameleon, thief and immoral pig: those are the charges that can be levied against you." These statements are your INTERPRETATION OF EVENTS but you write them as statements of FACT.

Now nobody here is trying to make George Galloway out as a saint, nobody here is 'pandering' to him like you claim. What we are doing is enjoying the way that Galloway confronted his accusers, people that we know are liars themselves and on that basis, we admire him. Maybe he did make flattering comments to Saddam and maybe he did think that the Soviet Union is a good idea, I do not think these issues are relevant to this particular testimony he made to the senate.

I think it is good to give credit where it is due. I don't think people give a lot of pats on the back nowadays, we drag people up just to slap them down.

You can dig up as much dirt on the guy as you like, you can make all the noise about hypocricy about the guy as you please... but we hear plenty of hypocrisy on a daily basis from our own leaders. I am no longer shocked to hear about chameleon-like qualities in these people.

But in context, George Galloway did not lie to millions of people to start a war justified by more lies and deception, he did not sell weapons to Iraq and to other dictators. If George Galloway supported Saddam like you claim, well compare that to the support the US gave to the Contras in Nicaragua who incited terror on their people, or the blind eye they turn towards Egypt whose 'Mubarak regime has been called the most "despotic Egyptian regime since the French came in 1798." Or more specifically, the support and trade the US conducted with Saddam before the sanctions.

There are many dictators in the world today, they exist in the middle east, in Latin America, in Africa and in many other states besides. So if you believe that the war was really based on the humanitarian issues of bringing down Saddam for the sake of his people, I'm afraid you have been duped and bedazzled by the hot air balloons on the propaganda parade.

If humanitarianism was such a big deal then why was only Iraq the focus? Why not kick out dictators like Mugabe in Zimbabwe? Or the dictator in Egypt? If humanitarianism was the issue of today then why the atrocities in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib prison? And why the sanctions on Iraq in the first place, don't they know that putting sanctions on the nation only hurts the people, not the leader?

Finally, to clear things up a little bit, the war on Iraq was found illegal by the international community, not just declared by George Galloway. The reason it was declared illegal is because America and Britain began an "offensive defence". America led the invasion upon another country that poses no security threat to her country. Iraq had never stepped into the US and started any trouble, they never bombed American citizens, nor threatened to bomb America or anything of the sort. America did not have the backing of the United Nations in this invasion either, so the war was completely without the backing of the international community and on that basis too, the war is seen as illegal.

Winston, you ramble on about how the orders for war were not illegal, but this is besides the point. The point is the war itself is illegal and it is not right that we should send our soldiers out to fight in a war that isn't neccessary for the security of their national interests. You also seem to be comparing the act of taking down Hitler to the situation with Saddam, that if you can justify one you can justify the other. This is not so. There is no argument that Hitler HAD to be taken down. Why? Because he was and had been a threat to the peace and freedom of Europe, it was because of him that the Second World War even began. Saddam did not really threaten our world so there was not the same need to take him down. I am not saying that the humanitarian reasons should not be justified, it would be a reason I would take him down if I could. However in reality, the humanitarian reasoning for the war is a pithy one at best.

I do not think that choosing not to fight the war consistutes to treason, such ideas in this day and age speak of Britain in the middle ages. Those who choose to be in the armed forces will follow orders to fight if they want to remain in them. Those who do not want to fight would have to leave the forces. It is choice not treason.

So with all the above in mind. At least for me, Galloway is lesser of the two evils.

Just to add emm's point never mind why we aint taking out other dictators why the hell are we still supporting other dictators with millitary aid, if the war was about freedom then why have The times of London just reported that British euipment was used in the slaughter of 700 people in Uzbekistan. Total hypocrisy

Safdar, I think you are right, it's bad enough to stand by and watch as these countries suffer from these regimes, and choose to only act upon ridding countries of dictators when it suits them to do so. It is completely another matter to preach humanitarianism in one breath whilst supporting humanitarian crisis elsewhere, and I agree, total hypocrisy!

Saying that though, my personal feeling on military intervention in general, is that no country has any business in toppling the regime of another country, even if they are repressive. I know this sounds a little uncaring but I believe that "Democracy" is something that has to be achieved by the people, for the people. If the people want democracy they have to fight for it, they have to want it, they have to own it.

Its no good artificially installing a democratic system in an unstable political environment, there needs to be such thing as a political evolution by the people before this can occur. Democracy cannot be approached as a evangalist dogma to spread and convert people to the 'faith' as it were, it is a system that is achived through revolution and at the hands of its people. If Iraqis were ready for a democracy they would have forged one. But it is clear there are too many radical factions and unstable alliances etc. in Iraq to make this a true state of democracy. I know this is somewhat off-topic, but it is a point to consider I reckon...

Sorry me again, I wanted to address the comments made in message number - 233... I think we have somehow overlooked Howard Simon Mark's remarks.

I think these are valid points to consider, I agree that in some respects Clinton had supported terror in some degree or another in the examples you have given. I will not argue that Bush is really just the icing on the cake with regards to the string of US presidents whose foreign policy leaves something to be desired. I think that the biggest hypocrisy is conducted by the Administration of US presidents over the last few decade. These men (and women) have slowly dismantled the state apparatus for democracy and are destroying all those wonderful ideals that America once stood for. Now these ideals appear to be ways to blind the public rather than guide them.

I have watched that documentary Life and Debt and I have been outraged by the way we profit from the misery and suffering of others. :angry: It is way off topic yet again, I just wanted to acknowledge that comment. Thanx

Emm,
I would agree with you and say that you cannot force democracy on people but my main argument with the war is that it’s got nothing to do with democracy that’s just a reason to give to the population who would not accept their nation and their soldiers dieing simply for the wealth of a few elite people.

As a British born Muslim I can tell you one thing I do not believe America will ever push for genuine democracy across the Muslim world why because look at the most democratic and the most secular Muslim nation which is Turkey, now that country had to say no to over $30 billion of loans and aid and refuse to let America base troop in their nation during the Iraq war because the population was against it, now what would a very conservative nation like Saudi Arabia, Qatar have done if they were answerable to their populations would they have allowed American troops to be based in their nations for this war ? No chance.

This war would not have been possible without the help of Muslim dictatorships now will America really want to get rid of them. This is why I find it inexcusable that this day and age with the media and internet and so many places to research facts we still have idiots who allow themselves to be programmed like by Fox news and believe whatever they are told.

Anyway we are definitely going off the subject now but I am not aware of any other site that has a similar discussion on the war I am new to this, if anyone can direct me to the right place for a discussion on this subject I would be grateful

Finally on simons points i would also agree it seems no matter which party is in power American foreign policy does not change greatly and in Britain its the same no matter who we have in charge he seems to take orders from washington.

I was pointing out that even if America and the UK were in fact pushing a real agenda of Democracy in the middle east and elsewhere, they would do it with the view of making sure it works not going in there guns-a-blasting and preaching democracy like some kind of thing you can adopt overnight with the right amount of forcefulness. Sorry if this wasn't clear.

But we need the oil! Don't you get it?!?

But, when we go in for the oil, surely we can clean up the countries too? Surely we can trade democracy for their oil. It would bring these countries up to date and able to trade on their own.

We do need the oil, I agree wholeheartedly that oil is important to our lives and to our economy. What I have issues with is the LIES. I hate being lied to by my government like I am some idiot, I KNOW it is about the oil, everybody is full aware it's about the oil, it is bold as brass that they went in there for the oil. I just find it sick that they pretend that it is all for the humanitarian reasons when this is blatently the last agenda on their minds, at least in the case of Iraq.

If the government had put to the public the REAL and HONEST agenda there would not be so big an issue; we do need the oil, without it our countries grind to a halt, and Saddam threatens our oil supply so we are going into Iraq to secure our lives, sounds fair enough to me. But I still believe there are ways of securing oil that do not demand invasion of other countries. Thats just my personal opinion.

Pete,

You said that the trade for democracy is for oil and that it would result in a country that is up to date and able to trade on its own. Well, if they are trading oil for Democracy, then what commodity is left for them to trade? Oil is their main resource. So its not that reasonable to trade Oil for Democracy considering that Iraqi people are being somewhat ripped off in the process, don't you think?

One of the things I liked about George Galloway's speech was seeing Coleman awkwardly shuffle the same bunch of papers dozens of times without the respect of looking toward George while he was speaking.
As George said the investigation into the UN oil for food programme was hiding the even bigger scandal of the missing $8.8 billion in Iraq oil revenues while under US-led rule. The BBC Radio 4 did an investigation into this which was broadcast on 1st Feb this year. Here are just a few of the programmes findings.

$1.4 billion dollars transported on pallets weighing 14 tons, by 3 helicopters to a bank in Kurdish held North Iraq went missing. No paper work ie deposit slip was obtained !!

American firm found disused forklifts at Bagdad airport and fraudently charged the CPA for new ones.

The key to a safe holding millions of dollars was kept in an open backpack so anyone could help themselves.

A US company massively inflating its profits by setting up sham companies to send fake invoices which the CPA paid.

CPA officials openly demanding bribes of up to $300,000 in cash.

As a point to finish on both Price Waterhouse Cooper corporate-finance group and the International Janes Defence Review have concluded that in 2005 the USA's Military / Pentagon budget will equal the rest of the worlds combined.

I was very impressed by Mr.Galloway's boldness and bravery.
The recent attack on London is a classic stage-show by the Bush/Blair axis.
"Blame it all on a fictional terrorist outfit, rally an already psyche-dead population behind the axis(Bush/Blair/G8) and shut up genuine supporters of Truth like Mr.Galloway".

Leave alone the other disasters of the last 40+ years, I still haven't got over the death of Marilyn Monroe, I mean was it a "suicide" ?? Starting from there, whole modern history seems open to question. The labels mass-media keeps hanging on power-elite organized disasters has insulted everyone's intelligence long enough.

Sincerely

- S

Agree..

I have just read the times online transcript of galloway to the commitee at the same time as listening to the video of his statment.During the video the microphone goes off.But the transcript omits more.I did notice lots of independant cameras recording.Does anyone have the full unedited version

meow...

meow...

meow...

at the senate george galloway showed himself to be an egotistical, grand standing, attention seeking for his own notoriety. people applaud him for saying what they wanted to say, are people now not able to think and say for themselves, 1 million did in the streets of london, please tell me was galloway leader of that? or would he claim to be leader of that? listen to him properly, he did not answer questions fully or with factual substance. he grand standed in front of the senate knowing he had full freedom of speech that he was not going to be tortured or shot or his wife raped. he say's he was opposed to saddam but his address to saddam shows something completely different. how he can justify this greeting by saying he was speaking to the people of iraq. also he recently made the comment that the majority of people in iraq loved saddam, and that it was a political minority that opposed saddam, his greeting and freindship shown to saddams son udin, was that opposition, galloway spouts facts without substance, he is unable to debate without insulting people that disagree with him and walks out, i put to you all that admire george galloway to look very closely at this man, he is devious, calculating and manipulates peoples emotions for his own gratification. he is most certainly not a man for the people he is a man that covets people being for him.

at the senate george galloway showed himself to be an egotistical, grand standing, attention seeking for his own notoriety. people applaud him for saying what they wanted to say, are people now not able to think and say for themselves, 1 million did in the streets of london, please tell me was galloway leader of that? or would he claim to be leader of that? listen to him properly, he did not answer questions fully or with factual substance. he grand standed in front of the senate knowing he had full freedom of speech that he was not going to be tortured or shot or his wife raped. he say's he was opposed to saddam but his address to saddam shows something completely different. how he can justify this greeting by saying he was speaking to the people of iraq. also he recently made the comment that the majority of people in iraq loved saddam, and that it was a political minority that opposed saddam, his greeting and freindship shown to saddams son udin, was that opposition, galloway spouts facts without substance, he is unable to debate without insulting people that disagree with him and walks out, i put to you all that admire george galloway to look very closely at this man, he is devious, calculating and manipulates peoples emotions for his own gratification. he is most certainly not a man for the people he is a man that covets people being for him.

at the senate george galloway showed himself to be an egotistical, grand standing, attention seeking for his own notoriety. people applaud him for saying what they wanted to say, are people now not able to think and say for themselves, 1 million did in the streets of london, please tell me was galloway leader of that? or would he claim to be leader of that? listen to him properly, he did not answer questions fully or with factual substance. he grand standed in front of the senate knowing he had full freedom of speech that he was not going to be tortured or shot or his wife raped. he say's he was opposed to saddam but his address to saddam shows something completely different. how he can justify this greeting by saying he was speaking to the people of iraq. also he recently made the comment that the majority of people in iraq loved saddam, and that it was a political minority that opposed saddam, his greeting and freindship shown to saddams son udin, was that opposition, galloway spouts facts without substance, he is unable to debate without insulting people that disagree with him and walks out, i put to you all that admire george galloway to look very closely at this man, he is devious, calculating and manipulates peoples emotions for his own gratification. he is most certainly not a man for the people he is a man that covets people being for him.

The case for the war was a pack of lies,I belive it too,but I can not know why they do it???just why....