Reply With Quote
Thanks for the info. what other shows you tune into?
as for TV , how do your feel about FOX?
...Christopher Hitchens
I was listening to Air America yesterday evening on my way home from work and was amused to hear Jeanene Garafolo (sp?) showing her ignorance on this topic. Apparently, she believes Coleman was so pissed about having his ass handed to him by Galloway, back in May, that he drummed these charges up.
Unfortunately, for Galloway and Ms. Garafolo, the evidence is pretty airtight -- including bank records and testimony from those involved.
Thanks for the info. what other shows you tune into?
as for TV , how do your feel about FOX?
Off the meds, mouse? Out of dope? What?
ex-liberal Hitchens, eh. Guess all that alcohol finally got most of his brain cells.
So, you think Galloway is innocent?
I think those are two legit questions. why don't you remove that stick in your ass and answer them?
Cuz its mouse and that question was a sarcastic one intended at trying to pin yoni as a FOx News conservative junkie who cant be held as legit.
Except I don't watch Fox and I'm a Libertarian.
I have no idea if Galloway is innocent or guilty. I enjoyed watching him chew up Norm Coleman and spit him out.
Hitchens has a personal grudge with this guy. He may be a crook, I don't really know, I just happen to agree with him that the war in Iraq is wrong. Maybe our reasons for that opinion differ. If Hitler said the sky is blue, I wouldn't start saying the sky is green because some evil person said it was blue.
I think you viewed the Galloway/Coleman exchange through the wrong glasses.
The Senate committee wasn't interested in a rhetorical exchange and didn't come to play that game with Galloway.
Back in May, while newspapers were waxing delirious over the rhetorical drubbing that George Galloway was apparently administering to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, I noticed something peculiar about the apparent passivity of the Senators towards Galloway's barbs. What you saw as a Galloway smack-down, I saw completely differently.
The really striking thing about the Galloway's testimony as transcribed by the Information Clearing House is how the Senators and the Member of Parliament for Bethnal Green and Bow were pursuing a non-collision course. Galloway had come to score press and public relations points at which, by all accounts, he was successful at doing. But Senator Coleman and Levin seemed totally uninterested in responding to Galloway's sharp political jibes. It was almost as if the Senators were deaf to his political posturing. Instead, they focused exclusively and repeatedly on two things: Galloway's relationship with Fawaz Zureikat and Tariq Aziz. Zureikat was a board member of Galloway's Mariam foundation who is also implicated in the Oil For Food deals. Tariq Aziz was Saddam's vice president.
During his testimony Senator Coleman asked this seemingly innocuous question of Galloway about his relationship with Fawaz Zureikat.
Later, it was the turn of Senator Levin to ask these mild-mannered questions of the firebrand from Bethnal Green and Bow about his dealings with Tariq Aziz. He was shortly followed by Senator Coleman who asked the same question but with different emphasis.
In May I thought that the tone and manner of Galloway's examination suggested that the Senators were trying to establish a specific point for the record, in the hopes of using Galloway's testimony against him later.
In the exchange above it is abundantly clear that both Coleman and Levin simply wanted to enter Galloway's denial of having discussed Oil for Food business with Tariq Aziz in the record. Levin immediately ends his questioning after eliciting Galloway's "Never". Coleman is content to merely establish that Aziz and Galloway were "friends" who had met "many times" before saying "I have no further questions of the witness".
The London Times reports that "The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will refer the Respect Party MP for possible prosecution after concluding that he gave 'false and misleading' testimony at his appearance before the panel in May." In particular, the Senate alleges they have found a paper trail showing payments leading from Fawaz Zureikat to George Galloway's wife. The Washington Times further reports that "Mr. Galloway personally asked for and received from Mr. Aziz and others eight allocations from 1999 to 2003 for the rights to 23 million barrels of oil." In any trial over perjury, Galloway's response to the Senator's questions in May will loom large. Galloway is laughing the whole thing off. The BBC reports:
The Bethnal Green and Bow MP also launched an attack on the senate investigators.
It was Galloway's contempt for the intelligence and capability of his Senatorial pursuers that may have gotten him into this perjury mess in the first place. It wasn't enough to remain silent on his relationship with with Zureikat. Playing to his gallery, Galloway boomed, "I can assure you, Mr. Zureikat never gave me a penny from an oil deal, from a cake deal, from a bread deal, or from any deal." Nice touch about the cake and the bread. Perhaps he couldn't imagine, at the time, why these yokels were asking him simple questions that were beneath his level of rhetorical ability. Even today Galloway may think so little of his adversaries that he was willing to boast on BBC Radio that "I am ready to fly to the US today, if necessary, to face such a charge because it is simply false.""They have been cavalier with any idea of process and justice so far, but I am still willing to go to the US and I am still willing to face any charge of perjury before the senate committee," he said.
He is as smart today as he was then.
define libertarian.
i Know this is not the real Yoni, but is this the real Ocotillo, from the OLD WOAI FORM,
Sandy's Friend
I am the Original AFE7FATMAN- Check with Manny-Irsh Lass, Cherry Steele,
Becky Whetstone, or her former Husband, i.e. #3, i believe.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions