• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Senate: Galloway lied

Despite his testimony and his self-proclaimed victory at his testimony last year in the Senate, it looks like Galloway's testimony didn't fool anyone but him and a few of his sychophants. Besides, his testimony was the real smokescreen as he did his best to steer the subject away from OFF to climb up on his soapbox about Iraq. Maybe it can be arranged so Georgy boy teams up with his good pal and potential new cellmate Saddam?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051025/ap_on_go_co/oil_for_food

WASHINGTON - An anti-war British lawmaker gave false testimony to Congress when he denied receiving U.N. oil-for-food allocations from deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, a Senate investigative panel said Monday.

Sen. Norm Coleman (news, bio, voting record), R-Minn., chairman of the subcommittee, and his investigators presented evidence that they say shows British lawmaker George Galloway's political organization and his wife received nearly $600,000 from the oil allocations.

Congressional investigators said Galloway could face charges of perjury, making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding, with each charge carrying a penalty of up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

A spokesman for Galloway, Ron McKay, said in an interview from London that the lawmaker denies the accusations and if charged with perjury is willing to appear in an American court.

"Put up or shut up," McKay said of Galloway's accusers, calling the report derogatory and defamatory.

During a May hearing, Galloway blasted Coleman's subcommittee as "the mother of all smoke screens," denying accusations that he profited from the oil-for-food program and accusing lawmakers of unfairly tarnishing his name.

Coleman, a critic of the United Nations, said his panel's evidence shows that Galloway personally solicited and was granted oil allocations totaling 23 million barrels from 1999 through 2003. Those allocations could be sold for a profit.

The report also alleges that Galloway's friend, Jordanian businessman Fawaz Zureikat, funneled money from the oil-for-food program to Galloway's wife, Amineh Abu-Zayyad, and to the Mariam Appeal, a political organization that Galloway established in 1998 to help a 4-year-old Iraqi girl with leukemia.

Coleman said his investigators confirmed their evidence in interviews with former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, a friend of Galloway's, and former Iraqi Vice President Taha Yasin Ramadan.

Several congressional committees are investigating allegations that Saddam Hussein manipulated the $64 billion oil-for-food program to get kickbacks and build international opposition to U.N. sanctions against Iraq imposed after Saddam's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

The program was created as an exception to the sanctions, allowing Saddam to sell oil and use the proceeds to buy food and other humanitarian items.
 
Unfortunately, RIW, this thread isn't about Iraq. Obfuscation on the first post is pretty difficult.

The claims are that Galloway lied about his role in Oil For Food.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Unfortunately, RIW, this thread isn't about Iraq. Obfuscation on the first post is pretty difficult.

The claims are that Galloway lied about his role in Oil For Food.

Actually....the OP's entire rant describing his view on the subject is ALL about his testimony on Iraq. The article is more towards your point. I chose to address the OP's opinion.
 
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Pabster
Unfortunately, RIW, this thread isn't about Iraq. Obfuscation on the first post is pretty difficult.

The claims are that Galloway lied about his role in Oil For Food.

Actually....the OP's entire rant describing his view on the subject is ALL about his testimony on Iraq. The article is more towards your point. I chose to address the OP's opinion.
No, my "rant" is not ALL about Galloway's testimony on Iraq.

Besides that, his opinion on Iraq didn't even belong with his testimony, which we now know was a big lie, nothing but grandstanding on his part, and an effort at diversion from the reason for his appearance in the Senate.

Like you though, he'd rather try to put up a smokescreen about Iraq than discuss the OFF implications.
 
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Guily in regards to OFF != wrong about Iraq.
Be sure to recognize Galloway has not only NOT been convicted of anything, as far as I can tell he's not charged with anything, nor has there even been any evidence offered to support the accusations against him. All we have so far is a partisan retaliating against a critic. It may well be Galloway is a total crook, and that may be fun to debate if we get some evidence to consider, but there's just nothing to discuss so far.

I find Chicken's sanctimonious bluster on this especially amusing given his Baghdad Bob performance on the Rove/Plame scandal. If I were bored, I'd do dig out a few choice bits of his hyperbole to amuse us.
 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Be sure to recognize Galloway has not only NOT been convicted of anything, as far as I can tell he's not charged with anything, nor has there even been any evidence offered to support the accusations against him. All we have so far is a partisan retaliating against a critic. It may well be Galloway is a total crook, and that may be fun to debate if we get some evidence to consider, but there's just nothing to discuss so far. I find Chicken's sanctimonious bluster on this especially amusing given his Baghdad Bob performance on the Rove/Plame scandal.

Talk about hypocrisy.

Most here already have Rove and Libby tried and convicted.

Obfuscation ... Denial ... Obfuscation ... Denial ...
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Be sure to recognize Galloway has not only NOT been convicted of anything, as far as I can tell he's not charged with anything, nor has there even been any evidence offered to support the accusations against him. All we have so far is a partisan retaliating against a critic. It may well be Galloway is a total crook, and that may be fun to debate if we get some evidence to consider, but there's just nothing to discuss so far. I find Chicken's sanctimonious bluster on this especially amusing given his Baghdad Bob performance on the Rove/Plame scandal.
Talk about hypocrisy.

Most here already have Rove and Libby tried and convicted.

Obfuscation ... Denial ... Obfuscation ... Denial ...
Go play. Among the many things you missed, there's a special, big, hard word you ignored: "evidence". In the Plame scandal, we have lots of evidence to form the basis for discussion: e-mails, testimony, mutiple news reports, people's notes, legal analysis of the laws involved, etc. Lots of evidence for both sides. We don't have that yet in this story. All we have is Coleman lashing back at someone who criticized him. As I said before, he may be right, but until he releases his evidence, it's just two boys calling each other names.
 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Guily in regards to OFF != wrong about Iraq.
Be sure to recognize Galloway has not only NOT been convicted of anything, as far as I can tell he's not charged with anything, nor has there even been any evidence offered to support the accusations against him. All we have so far is a partisan retaliating against a critic. It may well be Galloway is a total crook, and that may be fun to debate if we get some evidence to consider, but there's just nothing to discuss so far.

I find Chicken's sanctimonious bluster on this especially amusing given his Baghdad Bob performance on the Rove/Plame scandal. If I were bored, I'd do dig out a few choice bits of his hyperbole to amuse us.
Awe. Poor baby Finger. His typical knee-jerk, shoot the messenger reply. How pathetic.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Be sure to recognize Galloway has not only NOT been convicted of anything, as far as I can tell he's not charged with anything, nor has there even been any evidence offered to support the accusations against him. All we have so far is a partisan retaliating against a critic. It may well be Galloway is a total crook, and that may be fun to debate if we get some evidence to consider, but there's just nothing to discuss so far. I find Chicken's sanctimonious bluster on this especially amusing given his Baghdad Bob performance on the Rove/Plame scandal.

Talk about hypocrisy.

Most here already have Rove and Libby tried and convicted.

Obfuscation ... Denial ... Obfuscation ... Denial ...
Don't worry about da Finger. The best he can muster is wagging that finger around at other posters in an attempt to divert from the fact that one of his heroes is a zero.

---

You crapped your own thread. Keep it up, and it will be your account.

AnandTech Moderator
 
I didn't think I'd let my defense use the phrase "the mother of all smoke screens," when I'm denying involvement with the man that started "the mother of all wars". lol.

Seriosuly, you guys are all so predicatble. This is news, there's nothing wrong with TLC posting it, nothing wrong with people commenting on it. But in a few minutes in a liberal thread we'll see the same posts but with the roles reversed. Someone posts, soneone dismisses, then the attacks start!
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Guily in regards to OFF != wrong about Iraq.
Be sure to recognize Galloway has not only NOT been convicted of anything, as far as I can tell he's not charged with anything, nor has there even been any evidence offered to support the accusations against him. All we have so far is a partisan retaliating against a critic. It may well be Galloway is a total crook, and that may be fun to debate if we get some evidence to consider, but there's just nothing to discuss so far.

I find Chicken's sanctimonious bluster on this especially amusing given his Baghdad Bob performance on the Rove/Plame scandal. If I were bored, I'd do dig out a few choice bits of his hyperbole to amuse us.
Awe. Poor baby Finger. His typical knee-jerk, shoot the messenger reply. How pathetic.
Yes dear. Why don't you run along and play with Pabsie. You two have much in common. Maybe you can come back when someone produces evidence supporting Coleman's allegations. Then we'll have something to discuss.

I know it smarts when I expose your hypocrisy and blatant Bush shilling, but shooting the messenger doesn't solve your problem. It just makes you look childish. I'd be perfectly happy to see Galloway go down if he was profiteering from the Oil for Food program, but that's the difference between me and a partisan tool like you. I'm against the bad guys on both sides.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Don't worry about da Finger. The best he can muster is wagging that finger around at other posters in an attempt to divert from the fact that one of his heroes is a zero.
Good lord. You're a moron. Really. Major league. Get help.

:roll:
 
Like Galloway's lawyer said- "put up or shut up". Apparently, Coleman et cronies aren't doing either, merely continuing the smear.

Pretty much par for the course... Wonder what Coleman has to say about the plea bargains and proceedings against American firms currently under indictment in the OFF deal...

Aziz and Ramadan will obviously tell Coleman whatever he wants to hear, considering that they're locked up in legal limbo...
 
Originally posted by: tss4
I didn't think I'd let my defense use the phrase "the mother of all smoke screens," when I'm denying involvement with the man that started "the mother of all wars". lol.

Seriosuly, you guys are all so predicatble. This is news, there's nothing wrong with TLC posting it, nothing wrong with people commenting on it. But in a few minutes in a liberal thread we'll see the same posts but with the roles reversed. Someone posts, soneone dismisses, then the attacks start!
I agree that it's news in a "Keep an eye on this, it may get interesting" way, but if there's anything substantive I'm truly missing it. In my opinion, the actual content of the article doesn't begin to match Chicken's breathless spin:
  • "Despite his testimony and his self-proclaimed victory at his testimony last year in the Senate, it looks like Galloway's testimony didn't fool anyone but him and a few of his sychophants. Besides, his testimony was the real smokescreen as he did his best to steer the subject away from OFF to climb up on his soapbox about Iraq. Maybe it can be arranged so Georgy boy teams up with his good pal and potential new cellmate Saddam?"
YMMV.
 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Guily in regards to OFF != wrong about Iraq.
Be sure to recognize Galloway has not only NOT been convicted of anything, as far as I can tell he's not charged with anything, nor has there even been any evidence offered to support the accusations against him. All we have so far is a partisan retaliating against a critic. It may well be Galloway is a total crook, and that may be fun to debate if we get some evidence to consider, but there's just nothing to discuss so far.

I find Chicken's sanctimonious bluster on this especially amusing given his Baghdad Bob performance on the Rove/Plame scandal. If I were bored, I'd do dig out a few choice bits of his hyperbole to amuse us.
Awe. Poor baby Finger. His typical knee-jerk, shoot the messenger reply. How pathetic.
Yes dear. Why don't you run along and play with Pabsie. You two have much in common. Maybe you can come back when someone produces evidence supporting Coleman's allegations. Then we'll have something to discuss.

I know it smarts when I expose your hypocrisy and blatant Bush shilling, but shooting the messenger doesn't solve your problem. It just makes you look childish. I'd be perfectly happy to see Galloway go down if he was profiteering from the Oil for Food program, but that's the difference between me and a partisan tool like you. I'm against the bad guys on both sides.
So because Coleman didn't call you directly and fax his evidence for your personal approval it must all be BS? And you're against the bad guys so it's why you claim Coleman is merely a partisan retaliating?

Keep diverting and apologizing for Galloway while pretending you're fair-minded and not the rabidly Bush-hating, patisan hack we all know you to be.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Guily in regards to OFF != wrong about Iraq.
Be sure to recognize Galloway has not only NOT been convicted of anything, as far as I can tell he's not charged with anything, nor has there even been any evidence offered to support the accusations against him. All we have so far is a partisan retaliating against a critic. It may well be Galloway is a total crook, and that may be fun to debate if we get some evidence to consider, but there's just nothing to discuss so far.

I find Chicken's sanctimonious bluster on this especially amusing given his Baghdad Bob performance on the Rove/Plame scandal. If I were bored, I'd do dig out a few choice bits of his hyperbole to amuse us.
Awe. Poor baby Finger. His typical knee-jerk, shoot the messenger reply. How pathetic.
Yes dear. Why don't you run along and play with Pabsie. You two have much in common. Maybe you can come back when someone produces evidence supporting Coleman's allegations. Then we'll have something to discuss.

I know it smarts when I expose your hypocrisy and blatant Bush shilling, but shooting the messenger doesn't solve your problem. It just makes you look childish. I'd be perfectly happy to see Galloway go down if he was profiteering from the Oil for Food program, but that's the difference between me and a partisan tool like you. I'm against the bad guys on both sides.
So because Coleman didn't call you directly and fax his evidence for your personal approval it must all be BS? And you're against the bad guys so it's why you claim Coleman is merely a partisan retaliating?

Keep diverting and apologizing for Galloway while pretending you're fair-minded and not the rabidly Bush-hating, patisan hack we all know you to be.
More straw men from Sir Chicken. Let me repeat myself:
  • "Among the many things you missed, there's a special, big, hard word you ignored: "evidence". In the Plame scandal, we have lots of evidence to form the basis for discussion: e-mails, testimony, mutiple news reports, people's notes, legal analysis of the laws involved, etc. Lots of evidence for both sides. We don't have that yet in this story. All we have is Coleman lashing back at someone who criticized him. As I said before, he may be right, but until he releases his evidence, it's just two boys calling each other names."
Buh bye.
 
Originally posted by: tss4


heroes is a zero.

lol, did you really just say that?
Isn't that how it works in here? Any small defense of a person means you're an apologist for them and that person is your hero and personal savior?

Hyperbole? Sure. Unfortunately that hyperbole only seems recognizable when it comes from one direction in this forum.
 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: tss4
I didn't think I'd let my defense use the phrase "the mother of all smoke screens," when I'm denying involvement with the man that started "the mother of all wars". lol.

Seriosuly, you guys are all so predicatble. This is news, there's nothing wrong with TLC posting it, nothing wrong with people commenting on it. But in a few minutes in a liberal thread we'll see the same posts but with the roles reversed. Someone posts, soneone dismisses, then the attacks start!
I agree that it's news in a "Keep an eye on this, it may get interesting" way, but if there's anything substantive I'm truly missing it. In my opinion, the actual content of the article doesn't begin to match Chicken's breathless spin:
  • "Despite his testimony and his self-proclaimed victory at his testimony last year in the Senate, it looks like Galloway's testimony didn't fool anyone but him and a few of his sychophants. Besides, his testimony was the real smokescreen as he did his best to steer the subject away from OFF to climb up on his soapbox about Iraq. Maybe it can be arranged so Georgy boy teams up with his good pal and potential new cellmate Saddam?"
YMMV.

hmmm, good point. I read the article and TLC's take is pretty partisan and has quite a bit of spin. It would be nice if we would stick a little more to the facts. (and yes, chicken, other people do it to, doesn't make it right or neccesary-cause I know that line is coming).
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: tss4


heroes is a zero.

lol, did you really just say that?
Isn't that how it works in here? Any small defense of a person means you're an apologist for them and that person is your hero and personal savior?

Hyperbole? Sure. Unfortunately that hyperbole only seems recognizable when it comes from one direction in this forum.

don't be blind. Its recognizable both ways. It amazes me how some of the people on both sides are always playing the victim. People take some responsibility.

But actually, I was commeting on the phrase itself. It just sounded so old.
 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Guily in regards to OFF != wrong about Iraq.
Be sure to recognize Galloway has not only NOT been convicted of anything, as far as I can tell he's not charged with anything, nor has there even been any evidence offered to support the accusations against him. All we have so far is a partisan retaliating against a critic. It may well be Galloway is a total crook, and that may be fun to debate if we get some evidence to consider, but there's just nothing to discuss so far.

I find Chicken's sanctimonious bluster on this especially amusing given his Baghdad Bob performance on the Rove/Plame scandal. If I were bored, I'd do dig out a few choice bits of his hyperbole to amuse us.
Awe. Poor baby Finger. His typical knee-jerk, shoot the messenger reply. How pathetic.
Yes dear. Why don't you run along and play with Pabsie. You two have much in common. Maybe you can come back when someone produces evidence supporting Coleman's allegations. Then we'll have something to discuss.

I know it smarts when I expose your hypocrisy and blatant Bush shilling, but shooting the messenger doesn't solve your problem. It just makes you look childish. I'd be perfectly happy to see Galloway go down if he was profiteering from the Oil for Food program, but that's the difference between me and a partisan tool like you. I'm against the bad guys on both sides.
So because Coleman didn't call you directly and fax his evidence for your personal approval it must all be BS? And you're against the bad guys so it's why you claim Coleman is merely a partisan retaliating?

Keep diverting and apologizing for Galloway while pretending you're fair-minded and not the rabidly Bush-hating, patisan hack we all know you to be.
More straw men from Sir Chicken. Let me repeat myself:
  • "Among the many things you missed, there's a special, big, hard word you ignored: "evidence". In the Plame scandal, we have lots of evidence to form the basis for discussion: e-mails, testimony, mutiple news reports, people's notes, legal analysis of the laws involved, etc. Lots of evidence for both sides. We don't have that yet in this story. All we have is Coleman lashing back at someone who criticized him. As I said before, he may be right, but until he releases his evidence, it's just two boys calling each other names."
Buh bye.
And as I said multiple times in the Plame thread, if Rove is guilty he deserves to go down. So I'm really no different than you in that regard. So what's your fvcking problem, son?
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And as I said multiple times in the Plame thread, if Rove is guilty he deserves to go down. So I'm really no different than you in that regard. So what's your fvcking problem, son?

Then why are you argueing with his statement if you feel the same way? This is just an example of "he's my enemy, so I can't agree with him!"
 
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Pabster
Unfortunately, RIW, this thread isn't about Iraq. Obfuscation on the first post is pretty difficult.

The claims are that Galloway lied about his role in Oil For Food.

Actually....the OP's entire rant describing his view on the subject is ALL about his testimony on Iraq. The article is more towards your point. I chose to address the OP's opinion.

And Galloway proves why his tirade about Iraq will pay dividends for years to come.

 
Back
Top