Senate: Galloway lied

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

Really, what dividends are those?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

At this point this is just an allegation, and one coming from a person with a very clear political vendetta against Galloway. It's interesting to me he'd be willing to come here to answer the charges - that could make for an entertaining trial, guilty or not.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DonVito
At this point this is just an allegation

Just like with Delay and Rove.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

Really, what dividends are those?

People changing the subject to the invasion of Iraq and not his dealings with the oil for food scandal.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DonVito
At this point this is just an allegation

Just like with Delay and Rove.

Not quite. Delay has been indicted and arraigned. Rove is about to be indicted and arraigned any day now. There is evidence enough for grand juries to have them indicted. Where's the evidence for Galloway? Any indictment pending?

 

[Jhhnn]

Here's betting that when Coleman releases his "evidence" that it'll look and smell pretty much like the rationale for the invasion of Iraq...

Meanwhile, it's just splashy headlines and innuendo...

In the world of political right-spin, the second liar doesn't have a chance, which is the reason guys like Coleman strike first...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: tss4

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!"

I'm not arguing against his statement, even though he obviously feels we are different in that regard (which is little more than self-fluffage on his part and untrue). But as per his usual modus operandi he has to end with his ad hom flourish.

If you want to show some fairness, why don't you question Finger why that sort of thing is necessary in the first place instead of focusing purely on me? Or are you not trying to demonstrate any fairness and just want to rag on Chicken, much like Finger does?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

Really, what dividends are those?

People changing the subject to the invasion of Iraq and not his dealings with the oil for food scandal.

QFT

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DonVito
At this point this is just an allegation

Just like with Delay and Rove.

Not quite. Delay has been indicted and arraigned. Rove is about to be indicted and arraigned any day now. There is evidence enough for grand juries to have them indicted. Where's the evidence for Galloway? Any indictment pending?

The report just came out on Galloway. It took a long time for Delay to be indicted and it's been a long time and Rove has still not been indicted. So give it some time and let's see what the British government is oging to do when they receive the report.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DonVito
At this point this is just an allegation

Just like with Delay and Rove.

Not quite. Delay has been indicted and arraigned. Rove is about to be indicted and arraigned any day now. There is evidence enough for grand juries to have them indicted. Where's the evidence for Galloway? Any indictment pending?

The report just came out on Galloway. It took a long time for Delay to be indicted and it's been a long time and Rove has still not been indicted. So give it some time and let's see what the British government is oging to do when they receive the report.

You do realize that there are many, MANY more people involved in that, don't you? A lot of them are Americans too.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
You do realize that there are many, MANY more people involved in that, don't you? A lot of them are Americans too.

That's true.

But marginalizing the possible crimes of one with the excuse of many...

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
You do realize that there are many, MANY more people involved in that, don't you? A lot of them are Americans too.

That's true.

But marginalizing the possible crimes of one with the excuse of many...

Not marginalizing it at all. Just making sure that you hold ALL those who did wrong accountable and not just someone who punked out Coleman during a hearing.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Not marginalizing it at all. Just making sure that you hold ALL those who did wrong accountable and not just someone who punked out Coleman during a hearing.

Unfortunately the idea that everyone will be held responsible and accountable for their misdeeds with OFF is a big pipe dream.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: tss4

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!"

I'm not arguing against his statement, even though he obviously feels we are different in that regard (which is little more than self-fluffage on his part and untrue). But as per his usual modus operandi he has to end with his ad hom flourish.

If you want to show some fairness, why don't you question Finger why that sort of thing is necessary in the first place instead of focusing purely on me? Or are you not trying to demonstrate any fairness and just want to rag on Chicken, much like Finger does?

I thought, I made it obvious but I guess not. My comments were aimed at him too. You just had the last post at that point. You always want to insinuate that I don't bash both sides for this.
I try to be fair.

 

[TNM93]

It's obvious that right wing AIPAC nutjob from Minnesota has it out for him. After all, his testimony pretty much ripped him a new one.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ysperalda
It's obvious that right wing AIPAC nutjob from Minnesota has it out for him. After all, his testimony pretty much ripped him a new one.

I'm no Coleman fan, but, honestly, if someone was involved in OFF, I'd like to see [insert person here] "rip them a new one", regardless of their political persuasions. Justice isn't Democrat or Republican.

 

[TNM93]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ysperalda
It's obvious that right wing AIPAC nutjob from Minnesota has it out for him. After all, his testimony pretty much ripped him a new one.

I'm no Coleman fan, but, honestly, if someone was involved in OFF, I'd like to see [insert person here] "rip them a new one", regardless of their political persuasions. Justice isn't Democrat or Republican.

Lets be realistic here, this is partisan justice. He was one politician who may have been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. I'm sure Norm Coleman isn't innocent when it comes to ethics, afterall, he is one of the most gung ho Republicans to support the Iraq war.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ysperalda

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ysperalda
It's obvious that right wing AIPAC nutjob from Minnesota has it out for him. After all, his testimony pretty much ripped him a new one.

I'm no Coleman fan, but, honestly, if someone was involved in OFF, I'd like to see [insert person here] "rip them a new one", regardless of their political persuasions. Justice isn't Democrat or Republican.

Lets be realistic here, this is partisan justice. He was one politician who may have been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. I'm sure Norm Coleman isn't innocent when it comes to ethics, afterall, he is one of the most gung ho Republicans to support the Iraq war.

I'm sure that most people on the Hill have skeletons in their closet as far as ethics violations or percieved violations are concerned.

But let's be fair and state that his being a "gung ho Republican" in support of the Iraq war isn't a valid reason to assume that his ethic misdeeds, real or perceived, can be based solely on that as a reason.

That being said, I believe he is just releasing Galloway's name for partisan revenge also. Galloway's response to this:

CNN Story

"I did not lie under oath in front of the Senate committee," he said.

"Indeed, it was the power of my truth in front of the Senate committee which has got the Senator so scorned that he has returned to this sneak attack."

Galloway said he had not seen the report and accused the committee of "being cavalier with any idea of process and justice."

"I'm still willing to go to the United States and still willing to face any charge of perjury in front of that senate committee," he said.

"I'm demanding that they charge me with contempt and with perjury, I'm demanding it.

"If a Senate committee can go on the international airwaves without putting this to you, without sending me an advance and accuse me of lying under oath in front of a senate committee, then I demand they charge me with perjury and I'll be in the next plane to face it."

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ysperalda

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ysperalda
It's obvious that right wing AIPAC nutjob from Minnesota has it out for him. After all, his testimony pretty much ripped him a new one.

I'm no Coleman fan, but, honestly, if someone was involved in OFF, I'd like to see [insert person here] "rip them a new one", regardless of their political persuasions. Justice isn't Democrat or Republican.

Lets be realistic here, this is partisan justice. He was one politician who may have been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. I'm sure Norm Coleman isn't innocent when it comes to ethics, afterall, he is one of the most gung ho Republicans to support the Iraq war.

Coleman is in his first term and had been a honest and upstanding mayor before that.
Galloway appears to have had his hand caught in the cookie jar and his only defense is to go on the offense about a completely different subject, the invasion of Iraq.

Ill await this reports final conclusion but I wouldnt expect much less than proof of the charges. Whether or not any real charges will be brought against Galloway is up in the air.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DonVito
At this point this is just an allegation, and one coming from a person with a very clear political vendetta against Galloway. It's interesting to me he'd be willing to come here to answer the charges - that could make for an entertaining trial, guilty or not.

I assume you're talking about Coleman? If so, what "clear political vendetta" is it that he has?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Here's more specifics on what the Senate found:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1841396,00.html

US Senate 'finds Iraq oil cash in Galloway's wife's bank account'
From James Bone in New York and David Charter in Washington



GEORGE GALLOWAY faces possible criminal charges after a US Senate investigation tracked $150,000 (£85,000) in Iraqi oil money to his wife?s bank account in Jordan.
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.



The sub-committee claimed that, through intermediaries, Mr Galloway and the Mariam Appeal were granted eight allocations of Iraqi crude oil totalling 23 million barrels from 1999 to 2003.

It will also forward the new information to British authorities, saying it raised questions about Mr Galloway?s financial disclosure and the payment of illegal kickbacks to Iraq. ?We have what we would call the smoking gun,? said Senator Norm Coleman, the sub-committee?s Republican chairman.

The sub-committee?s report, released today, was provoked by Mr Galloway?s clash with the senators ? which he turned into a book entitled Mr Galloway goes to Washington. In that encounter, the anti-war MP vehemently denied receiving oil allocations from Iraq.

But the report provides bank account details tracking payments from an oil company through a Jordanian middleman to Mr Galloway?s nowestranged wife, Amineh Abu- Zayyad, and his Mariam Appeal fund.

?Galloway was anything but straight with the Congress. He was anything but straight with the American people. There was a lot of bombast. There was a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing,? Senator Coleman said. ?We take very seriously the importance of testifying honestly before this committee . . .? he said. ?We will forward matters relating to Galloway?s false and misleading statements to the proper authorities here and in Great Britain.?

A Senate aide said that Mr Galloway would be referred to the Justice Department for investigation of possible perjury, false statement and obstruction of a congressional proceeding ? all ?Class A? felonies carrying a sentence of up to five years and a $250,000 fine.

The report says the Jordanian middleman Fawaz Zureikat, a close friend of Mr Galloway and his representative in Baghdad, funnelled $150,000 from Iraqi oil sales to Mr Galloway?s wife and at least $446,000 to the Mariam Appeal. On the same day Mr Zureikat also paid $15,666 to Ron McKay, Mr Galloway?s spokesman. Mr McKay could not be contacted for comment last night.

The saga dates back to Mr Galloway?s Big Ben to Baghdad tour in September 1999 when he took a red double-decker bus to Iraq. An anonymous ?oil trader 1? told the Senate investigators that Mr Galloway asked him at the Rashid Hotel, during the tour, how to translate oil allocations into money.

Another individual, known as ?oil trader 2?, told the investigators that he learnt in summer 2000 that the Iraqi Government had granted an allocation of oil to someone represented by Mr Zureikat. Oil trader 2 said: ?At that time I knew that the individual that Zureikat represented was a British official named George Galloway.?

He added: ?Officials of the Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organisation confirmed to me that Mr Zureikat represented Mr Galloway in the sale of Galloway?s allocations of Iraqi crude oil.?

He also told investigators: ?The fact that Mr Zureikat represented Mr Galloway with respect to oil allocations and other business in Iraq was common knowledge, understood by many oil traders with whom I had regular contact.?

The investigators spoke to Tariq Aziz, the former Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, who told them that Mr Galloway asked him for political funding in allocations in the name of Mr Zureikat. The Senate report shows that Mr Zureikat received $740,000 from Taurus Petroleum on July 27, 2000, as commission for its purchase of 2,645,068 barrels of oil.

The report then reproduces money-transfer documents from Citibank showing that Mr Zureikat sent Mr Galloway?s wife $150,000 on August 3, 2000. They conclude that the amount was ?largely? Oil-for-Food money because Mr Zureikat?s account contained $848,683 at the time, only $38,000 of which did not come from the programme.

Mr Galloway accused Senator Coleman last night of using congressional privilege to attack and smear him.

He said: ?I?ve already comprehensively dealt with these allegations ? under oath in the High Court and the US Senate ? to the Charity Commission and in innumerable media inquiries.?

It's not looking good for George and his blustery antics may not do him any good this time around.

 

[TNM93]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ysperalda

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ysperalda
It's obvious that right wing AIPAC nutjob from Minnesota has it out for him. After all, his testimony pretty much ripped him a new one.

I'm no Coleman fan, but, honestly, if someone was involved in OFF, I'd like to see [insert person here] "rip them a new one", regardless of their political persuasions. Justice isn't Democrat or Republican.

Lets be realistic here, this is partisan justice. He was one politician who may have been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. I'm sure Norm Coleman isn't innocent when it comes to ethics, afterall, he is one of the most gung ho Republicans to support the Iraq war.

Coleman is in his first term and had been a honest and upstanding mayor before that.
Galloway appears to have had his hand caught in the cookie jar and his only defense is to go on the offense about a completely different subject, the invasion of Iraq.

Ill await this reports final conclusion but I wouldnt expect much less than proof of the charges. Whether or not any real charges will be brought against Galloway is up in the air.

Ask yourself what Coleman stands to gain by going after Galloway. Galloway is a target for many of these committee members, merely for the fact that he opposed the war. Coleman supports AIPAC, as does Carl Levin. You honestly think that AIPAC doesn't have an interest in seeing Iraq molded into a country friendly to Israel? They do. Therefore, it's worth the political capital to stick their necks out to save face and try to continue the support for the war.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: TNM93

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ysperalda

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ysperalda
It's obvious that right wing AIPAC nutjob from Minnesota has it out for him. After all, his testimony pretty much ripped him a new one.

I'm no Coleman fan, but, honestly, if someone was involved in OFF, I'd like to see [insert person here] "rip them a new one", regardless of their political persuasions. Justice isn't Democrat or Republican.

Lets be realistic here, this is partisan justice. He was one politician who may have been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. I'm sure Norm Coleman isn't innocent when it comes to ethics, afterall, he is one of the most gung ho Republicans to support the Iraq war.

Coleman is in his first term and had been a honest and upstanding mayor before that.
Galloway appears to have had his hand caught in the cookie jar and his only defense is to go on the offense about a completely different subject, the invasion of Iraq.

Ill await this reports final conclusion but I wouldnt expect much less than proof of the charges. Whether or not any real charges will be brought against Galloway is up in the air.

Ask yourself what Coleman stands to gain by going after Galloway. Galloway is a target for many of these committee members, merely for the fact that he opposed the war. Coleman supports AIPAC, as does Carl Levin. You honestly think that AIPAC doesn't have an interest in seeing Iraq molded into a country friendly to Israel? They do. Therefore, it's worth the political capital to stick their necks out to save face and try to continue the support for the war.

Ask yourself the same question, what does he have to gain by going after Galloway? A senator from MN who has no ties to British politics? What does he gain by covering the OFF scandal?

As for an Iraq friendly to Israel, wouldnt that be beneficial to everybody in the region and to the world?!?!?!?!?!? What exactly would be wrong with having a friendly relationship between the two?

 

[Genx87]

Thank you mod

 

[Corn]

I was wondering why this was locked myself.