Galloway unloads with both barrels at US senators

**English assassin** · 05-17-2005, 17:47

He's as bent as a nine bob note, obviously, but you have to get up VERY early in the morning to have a chance against Gorgeous in full rhetorical flow.

Apart from a nifty line in oratory, and the fact that he is by no stretch of the imagination a fool, he also has the advantage that he's willing to deny absolutely everything. He won a big libel action over here recently when a paper published the fact that documents had been found in Baghdad detailing payments made to him by the regime. The fact that the documents were found was not denied, nor did Gorgeous claim that the paper had made them up, but somehow he still won.

Why did Labour ever let him go?

Because he's a nutter and a crook. Oh, hang on, I see your point.

**Duke Malcolm** · 05-17-2005, 17:50

He won because they were proven to have been forged

**Adrian II** · 05-17-2005, 18:52

Originally Posted by English assassin

Because he's a nutter and a crook. Oh, hang on, I see your point.

Well, today the nut was on the other tree. Did you hear what they 'had' on him? This man was all over Iraq and the Middle East for twelve years, and all they had was one document of unsubstantiated authenticity in which one of his Iraqi associates apparently mentioned his name to someone else. You would have thought Galloway's name would be all over the Oil Ministry's files. You would have thought the painstaking audit of his Mariam Foundation would have turned up pointers to possible shady deals. And then it got worse: he was accused of taking oil-for-food kick backs before there was an oil-for-food programme. Hello!...

**ShadesWolf** · 05-17-2005, 19:01

I must admit he held no punches back.

He was very impressive.

**Adrian II** · 05-17-2005, 19:17

Originally Posted by ShadesWolf

I must admit he held no punches back.

He was very impressive.

Psst.. I know Galloway's a nutter, but he's neither a crook nor a liar and today he did one terrific job.

**Don Corleone** · 05-17-2005, 19:13

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Well, today the nut was on the other tree. Did you hear what they 'had' on him? This man was all over Iraq and the Middle East for twelve years, and all they had was one document of unsubstantiated authenticity in which one of his Iraqi associates apparently mentioned his name to someone else. You would have thought Galloway's name would be all over the Oil Ministry's files. You would have thought the painstaking audit of his Mariam Foundation would have turned up pointers to possible shady deals. And then it got worse: he was accused of taking oil-for-food kick backs before there was an oil-for-food programme. Hello!...

Well, no matter how great or poor an orator the man is, this is all I'm really intersted in. Please say it isn't so. The entire body of evidence against the guy was a document of one Iraqi mentioning his name as a beneficiary of the 'Oil-for-Food' program? Then why on Earth would the members of the committe called him to testify? Didn't it occur to them that accusing somebody, with pretty shoddy evidence, was bound to blow up in their faces? Good grief Charlie Brown.

But Adrian, not for nothing, I thought you had not problem with running with unsubstantiated sources.

**Adrian II** · 05-17-2005, 19:15

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

But Adrian, not for nothing, I thought you had not problem with running with unsubstantiated sources.

Can you back that up, you big schoolboy?

**Don Corleone** · 05-17-2005, 19:17

YOU posted that in an another thread, claiming Newsweek did the right thing by turning into a rumor mill, sweetcheeks.

**Adrian II** · 05-17-2005, 19:19

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

YOU posted that in an another thread, claiming Newsweek did the right thing by turning into a rumor mill, sweetcheeks.

They were going on two independent sources, honeybuns.

**Don Corleone** · 05-17-2005, 19:23

Originally Posted by AdrianII

They were going on two independent sources, honeybuns.

No darling

, in their retraction notice, they said there 'one' source claimed he couldn't remember where he actually saw the document at first.

**Don Corleone** · 05-17-2005, 19:21

And before you and I start going at it, please note, while I did make a dig at you in the final line, the point of my post was I can't believe this Senate subcommitte would be so stupid. If this is what they lead off with, in the big PR game of 'let's get the UN over Oil for Food', they're in a lot of trouble. Even if they have better material in their lineup, by the time they get to it, nobody will be listening. "Aaah, right, the smoking gun, it was Volker and Annan, in the Conservatory, with the Wrench". Nobody will believe a word of it, unless they somehow get some people to start confessing.

I'm no DA, but I'd imagine that the first impression of the case is pretty important, and to set the tone as the guy who has all the answers, you start with your strongest material first. If this is it, they ought to call of these hearings now.

**Adrian II** · 05-17-2005, 19:27

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I'm no DA, but I'd imagine that the first impression of the case is pretty important, and to set the tone as the guy who has all the answers, you start with your strongest material first. If this is it, they ought to call of these hearings now.

I noticed that, and I love you, Don. I mean I love your kind of America, more than you're probably ready to believe. But I digress, you callous Neocon bastard.