Senate: Galloway lied

[CaptnKirk]

And Galloway replies:

<Feeling Froggy ?>

Today Mr Galloway repeated denials that he had ever received any oil cash, and told Mr Coleman to "put up or shut up" by either bringing a prosecution or dropping the allegations. The Respect MP accused Mr Coleman of orchestrating a "sneak revenge attack" motivated by a desire to avenge his "humiliation" at the hearing in May.
"I am demanding prosecution, I am begging for prosecution," Mr Galloway told Sky News. "I am saying if I have lied under oath in front of the senate, that's a criminal offence. Charge me and I will head for the airport right now and face them down in court as I faced them down in the senate room.

"Because I publicly humiliated this lickspittle senator Norman Coleman - one of [George] Bush's righthand men - in the US senate in May, this sneak revenge attack has been launched over the past 24 hours."

Background Article

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
And Galloway replies:<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://">http://www.guar...o.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1600269,00.html[/l</a>http://[/L]

<Feeling Froggy ?>

Today Mr Galloway repeated denials that he had ever received any oil cash, and told Mr Coleman to "put up or shut up" by either bringing a prosecution or dropping the allegations. The Respect MP accused Mr Coleman of orchestrating a "sneak revenge attack" motivated by a desire to avenge his "humiliation" at the hearing in May.
"I am demanding prosecution, I am begging for prosecution," Mr Galloway told Sky News. "I am saying if I have lied under oath in front of the senate, that's a criminal offence. Charge me and I will head for the airport right now and face them down in court as I faced them down in the senate room.

"Because I publicly humiliated this lickspittle senator Norman Coleman - one of [George] Bush's righthand men - in the US senate in May, this sneak revenge attack has been launched over the past 24 hours."

Let's see - becuase he "humiliated" Coleman in May, this "revenge attack" has been launched at the end of October?

I'm sure Galloway worded his answers so he wouldn't lie, but I'm not so sure that he didn't know how that extra $150,000 got in his wife's account.

 

[FuzzyBee]

After further reading Galloway's comments, they sound like he's been holding on to them for a while. Maybe the reason he has been outspoken against the war in Iraq is because he feared thi day coming. Perhaps *he* is the one running the smokescreen - after all, the only reason he is mentioned is because he spoke out about the war, right?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
I'm sure Galloway worded his answers so he wouldn't lie, but I'm not so sure that he didn't know how that extra $150,000 got in his wife's account.

I'm sure he has no idea where that money came from.

 

[Thump553]

If Coleman actually does have evidence, one wonders why he is trying this in the court of public opinion rather than filing the appropriate charges against Galloway. Galloway has clearly stated he will submit to US jurisdiction for a trial.

Unfortunately, all we are getting is the fog and the posturing and no substance. Perhaps Galloway is guilty, perhaps it is all a partisan setup-NONE of us know. Speculating on his guilt or innocence in the absence of such a trial does little more than expose the predisposition of the speculator(s).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Galloway must have taken lessons from Bush.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Thump553
If Coleman actually does have evidence, one wonders why he is trying this in the court of public opinion rather than filing the appropriate charges against Galloway. Galloway has clearly stated he will submit to US jurisdiction for a trial.

Unfortunately, all we are getting is the fog and the posturing and no substance. Perhaps Galloway is guilty, perhaps it is all a partisan setup-NONE of us know. Speculating on his guilt or innocence in the absence of such a trial does little more than expose the predisposition of the speculator(s).

Coleman isnt a prosecutor, all he can do is provide the information to the public, if charges are warranted the DoJ or British authorities will charge Galloway with a crime.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Thump553
If Coleman actually does have evidence, one wonders why he is trying this in the court of public opinion rather than filing the appropriate charges against Galloway. Galloway has clearly stated he will submit to US jurisdiction for a trial.

I hope the Brits are interested enough to bring him to trial.

Unfortunately, all we are getting is the fog and the posturing and no substance. Perhaps Galloway is guilty, perhaps it is all a partisan setup-NONE of us know. Speculating on his guilt or innocence in the absence of such a trial does little more than expose the predisposition of the speculator(s).

Fog and posturing? We have more information on what Galloway has supposedly done than what Delay supposedly did, yet that doesn't prevent the speculators from condemning Delay already. The speculative disposition swings both ways when it comes to politics

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Galloway must have taken lessons from Bush.

No. Galloway took lessons from his good buddy Saddam; and possibly more than just lessons.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

One more forgery? Very probable, from a mathematical point of view.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/galloway_document.html

<< I relinked this because Republican Senator Norm Coleman, who chairs the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, claims to have found new documents supporting an accusation that Galloway personally profited from Saddam's oil-for-food program.

Now there is a simple bit of logic here and it applies to the forged Niger documents as well. If one has real evidence, one does not need to resort to forgery. Why waste the time and energy, and why take a risk. Therefore, the existence of a single forged piece of evidence proves there is no real evidence to support the accusation being made, and moreover, that the forger knows this, else there is no need for the forgery.

So, just as the forged Niger documents prove a deliberate attempt to falsely frame Iraq, the forged Galloway documents prove a deliberate attempt to frame him.

Any proof that Coleman claims to have "found" now is automatically suspect. >>

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Galloway must have taken lessons from Bush.

No. Galloway took lessons from his good buddy Saddam; and possibly more than just lessons.

Oh he may have taken much from Saddam. I really don't know. Then again Saddam has had many friends which he as used and been used in return.

I am not in the position of having to defend anyone, unlike neocons. Remarkably freeing.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Looks to me like the font had to be shrunk to fit the line. That's why this "obvious forgery" looks different.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/galloway_document.html

<< I relinked this because Republican Senator Norm Coleman, who chairs the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, claims to have found new documents supporting an accusation that Galloway personally profited from Saddam's oil-for-food program.

You come in here parroting "the truth" from an extreme left-wing site?

Got anything to corrobate that besides that particular article?

 

[Jhhnn]

Galloway already won a libel suit against a British newspaper for spreading the same FUD- I wonder if Coleman is somehow exempt...

And, like the Niger uranium hoax, or GWB's "discovered" TANG records, the paperwork is obvious forgery...

Coleman's got nothing, except a bankrupt cause, a megaphone, and an army of fanboys marching behind...

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/galloway_document.html

<< I relinked this because Republican Senator Norm Coleman, who chairs the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, claims to have found new documents supporting an accusation that Galloway personally profited from Saddam's oil-for-food program.

You come in here parroting "the truth" from an extreme left-wing site?

Got anything to corrobate that besides that particular article?

And this is bad... why?

From what you said it means that even Lefties.. are willing to report on the truth when their own party commits a crime

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: dahunan
And this is bad... why?

From what you said it means that even Lefties.. are willing to report on the truth when their own party commits a crime

You don't find it surprising that only one site has one article?

If this were "fact" there'd be a lot more "news sources" to choose from.

Edit: To make it simpler, they say "This document is a fake." and that's it. No evidence, no proof, nothing. And this "fake" document isn't reported anywhere else.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Galloway must have taken lessons from Bush.

No. Galloway took lessons from his good buddy Saddam; and possibly more than just lessons.

Oh he may have taken much from Saddam. I really don't know. Then again Saddam has had many friends which he as used and been used in return.

I am not in the position of having to defend anyone, unlike neocons. Remarkably freeing.

I'm amazed you are trying to equate these two.

You'll have to indict FDR for allying with "Uncle Joe Stalin" (Saddam pales in comparsion) during WWII.


I wouldn't indict FDR for that because it simply had to be done and was part of a bigger and more just aim.

But this Rumsfeld picture is only going to affect those who are dominated by their emotions. And a person like that is frankly unfit to give real political prescriptions because they are so affected by emotion and obviously let it overtake reason, in this case. (And IMO)

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: dahunan
And this is bad... why?

From what you said it means that even Lefties.. are willing to report on the truth when their own party commits a crime

You don't find it surprising that only one site has one article?

If this were "fact" there'd be a lot more "news sources" to choose from.

Edit: To make it simpler, they say "This document is a fake." and that's it. No evidence, no proof, nothing. And this "fake" document isn't reported anywhere else.

I see.. oops.. I didn't look at it from that angle.. good eye..

I don't know anything about these people ... I am only in P&N because I hate politicians.. and I hate war

I honestly doubt there is EVEN ONE honest politician in America

If this guy is guilty then he had better give up the goods on anyone else who may have been involved.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Galloway must have taken lessons from Bush.

No. Galloway took lessons from his good buddy Saddam; and possibly more than just lessons.

Oh he may have taken much from Saddam. I really don't know. Then again Saddam has had many friends which he as used and been used in return.

I am not in the position of having to defend anyone, unlike neocons. Remarkably freeing.

I'm amazed you are trying to equate these two.

You'll have to indict FDR for allying with "Uncle Joe Stalin" (Saddam pales in comparsion) during WWII.


I wouldn't indict FDR for that because it simply had to be done and was part of a bigger and more just aim.

But this Rumsfeld picture is only going to affect those who are dominated by their emotions. And a person like that is frankly unfit to give real political prescriptions because they are so affected by emotion and obviously let it overtake reason, in this case. (And IMO)

I understand precisely why and how Saddam and the US used each other. We knew at the time what he was and what he was doing. We were not in the least worried about the Iraqis. Our "more just aim" was to play Saddam off against the Iranians with the hope of as many dying as possible.

Please spare us morality and being just. High sounding words for mutual exploitation.

When it comes down to it, we would kill every man, woman and child in Iraq if it was seen to be necessary to the security of the US. As it is, it is not.

Galloway may have profited. Rumsfeld uses Saddam to kill Iranians, and accepted what Saddam was.

That's the unsugared version of the truth. Spare us "noble" notions.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Galloway must have taken lessons from Bush.

No. Galloway took lessons from his good buddy Saddam; and possibly more than just lessons.

Oh he may have taken much from Saddam. I really don't know. Then again Saddam has had many friends which he as used and been used in return.

I am not in the position of having to defend anyone, unlike neocons. Remarkably freeing.

I'm amazed you are trying to equate these two.

You'll have to indict FDR for allying with "Uncle Joe Stalin" (Saddam pales in comparsion) during WWII.


I wouldn't indict FDR for that because it simply had to be done and was part of a bigger and more just aim.

But this Rumsfeld picture is only going to affect those who are dominated by their emotions. And a person like that is frankly unfit to give real political prescriptions because they are so affected by emotion and obviously let it overtake reason, in this case. (And IMO)

I understand precisely why and how Saddam and the US used each other. We knew at the time what he was and what he was doing. We were not in the least worried about the Iraqis. Our "more just aim" was to play Saddam off against the Iranians with the hope of as many dying as possible.

Please spare us morality and being just. High sounding words for mutual exploitation.

When it comes down to it, we would kill every man, woman and child in Iraq if it was seen to be necessary to the security of the US. As it is, it is not.

Galloway may have profited. Rumsfeld uses Saddam to kill Iranians, and accepted what Saddam was.

That's the unsugared version of the truth. Spare us "noble" notions.

Ok if you want to ignore the allying with dictators/FDR issue, what would you have done differently during the Iran/Iraq war? Let's hammer it out, and you better have an alternative if you're going to criticize what was done. And you have the benefit of hindsight and theoretical suggestions that never have to be tested.


Would you have supported only Saddam, helping him to win and become the dominant power of the middle east?

We could have done 4 things from my point of view:

1. Soley supported Iran, helping the new Islamic extremist revolutionary government to gain dominance in the region.

2. Solely supported Saddam, helping him gain dominance of the region, and he had ambitions of dominating all of the middle east.

3. Supported both hoping both would destabilize the the other, as both the Sha and Saddam's governments were an absolute negative force on the world and their own people.

4. Stayed out of it entirely and just hoped something good would happen as a result.



You also act like our getting involved somehow killed more, when really you cannot say.

Had Saddam or the Sha won, millions could have been slaughtered.


But let's hear your theoretical solution.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

I understand precisely why and how Saddam and the US used each other. We knew at the time what he was and what he was doing. We were not in the least worried about the Iraqis. Our "more just aim" was to play Saddam off against the Iranians with the hope of as many dying as possible.

Please spare us morality and being just. High sounding words for mutual exploitation.

When it comes down to it, we would kill every man, woman and child in Iraq if it was seen to be necessary to the security of the US. As it is, it is not.

Galloway may have profited. Rumsfeld uses Saddam to kill Iranians, and accepted what Saddam was.

That's the unsugared version of the truth. Spare us "noble" notions.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Polish3d]

Sorry to hear that

 

[arsbanned]

Meanwhile, number 2,000 dies and all Bush can say is 'be perpered fer more sacerfaice... Fvck u Mr. "President"....

 

[Pabster]

Obfuscaters in full force.

 

[Polish3d]

It's interesting... changing the topic from Galloway's potentially heinous crimes to complaints about Bush or Rumsfeld... I wonder if if/when Galloway is convicted, they will still find him an amiable and defensible ally.