George Galloway!

The Saint

Link to Fox news opinion

Sad, just sad.

Jimboo_Jones

Fox news is quite, quite bad

Memnoch

and this is the network that the majority of america trusts..

how can democracy work for any good when there is so much misinformation and lies that are spread?

A Dub in Glasgo

Been away all week and i have just caught the Galloway senate stuff and boy, they were badly advised.

Anybody with a bit of political knowledge in the UK will be able to tell you that Galloway will not be one of the types that they normally hear in Senate hearings.

Fantastic piece of politics and it is so satisfying to see somebody tell the US senate what they do not want to hear. Very impressive the way he articulated everything without mumbling or reading from notes.

Well done George

Stabshauptmann

oh dear god, I knew fox was bad but "hates you if you're american and proud of it", "his wifes a palistinian", "everyone who opposed the war was wrong, just wrong".

FFS!

A Dub in Glasgo

This gets even funnier. Apparantly, the testimony from Galloway has now gone missing

The Seante committee website states that Galloway did not submit a statement which is obviously a lie.

They like the whole idea of the truth in the US Senate :eek:

Nuttzz

I loved the way he accussed the democrat senator of supporting the war in Iraq only to be told by the senator that he voted against the war........

pork99

This thread only demonstrates how easy it is to impress student lefties.

Read this

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=36&si=1401248&issue_id=12514

for feck's sake

Lemming

pork99 wrote:

This thread only demonstrates how easy it is to impress student lefties.

Read this

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=36&si=1401248&issue_id=12514

for feck's sake

That requires registration. Quote please

whiskeyman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

This gets even funnier. Apparantly, the testimony from Galloway has now gone missing

perhaps they've just filed it away with the conclusive proof of WMD in Iraq...

A Dub in Glasgo

pork99 wrote:

This thread only demonstrates how easy it is to impress student lefties.

Really? I have not been a student for 12 years

Read this

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=36&si=1401248&issue_id=12514

for feck's sake

I have read it, what about it?

pork99

Lemming wrote:

That requires registration. Quote please

Here you go

Don't be fooled by George Galloway's potent mix of bravado and bluster

TWO years ago I saw George Galloway seduce a student audience in TCD. While he was speaking, I too fell under the spell. But when it was over I had second thoughts. Last week he mesmerised the British and Irish media with the same mix of bravado and bluster. Like me, the BBC and RTE too, will be forced to have second thoughts. Galloway never

' . . . there are three major black marks against George Galloway. The first black mark is his slumming with people who smell of sulphur'

gave a satisfactory answer to Senator Carl Levin's questions about his relationship with Fawaz Zureikat, the Jordanian businessman who traded in Iraqi oil, who was also chairman of Galloway's charity the Mariam Appeal.

Levin left other bruises. When Galloway barked: "You supported the war", the anti-war Democrat never lifted his voice but simply said: "Sorry about that, I didn't. But that's beside the point . . . You're wrong in your facts."

Galloway often gets his facts wrong. For example, he told the media he had offered to testify to the Senate in advance of last week's report. Senator Norm Coleman refreshed his memory: Galloway had not contacted them "by any means, including but not limited to telephone, fax, email, letter, Morse code or carrier pigeon". Galloway later retracted his claim.

No matter what the breathless BBC and RTE groupies believe, Galloway's brazen performance would have alerted rather than allayed the Senators' suspicions. Senate subcommittees are a lot tougher than the slipshod British media - and they have the money and the means to go deeper into Galloway's past. There is a good chance that Galloway's gloating last Tuesday was premature.

Meantime, Galloway, himself an adept manufacturer of media smokescreens, can bask in the smitten embrace of the British and Irish media establishments. But even from a liberal or leftist perspective there are at least three major black marks against George Galloway.

The first black mark is his slumming with people who smell of sulphur. Following a cosy meeting with Saddam in August 2002, Galloway reported back to anybody interested in tyrant rehab, that Saddam had "a gentle handshake" and was "surprisingly diffident".

In a 'Hitler was kind to his pet Alsatian Blondie so he must be OK after all' moment, Galloway recounted that over some Quality Street in "a tastefully-lit room" with "artfully-arranged flowers", Saddam had shared anecdotes about Churchill. "Hardly the heart of darkness" the gullible Galloway concluded.

Galloway did not spoil his Saddam moment by bringing up the killing of 182,000 Kurds, the murder of 300,000 Iraqis, the death of 600,000 Iraqis during the war with Iran, the torture chambers, the mass graves, the crimes against women committed by his depraved sons, Uday and Quasay. Not a word.

But even small-time terrorists seem to turn Galloway on. Back in 1990, well before the IRA ceasefire, Galloway marched alongside Gerry Adams to campaign against British policy in Ireland. In fairness Adams never got anything like the serenade Saddam got from Galloway in January 1994 when he praised the Baghdad Butcher in the following fulsome terms: "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability." Galloway claimed, unconvincingly, that he had been lauding the Iraqi people.

The second black mark is Galloway's fondness for capitalist fleshpots. Although Channel 4's leading leftie, Jon Snow, detailed Galloway's macho assault on Capitol Hill with girlie glee, he missed many vital visual clues to Galloway's smoked-salmon style of socialism. Like the Louis Vuitton luggage bag Galloway carried into the Senate hearing. Like the perma-tan, perfected at his Portugal retreat the week before. Like the expensive, super-sized Havana cigar stuck to him like a cosmetic implant. Like the expensive suits - another trait he shares with Adams.

But designer suits are not all that Adams and Galloway have in common. Neither men spend much time in the House of Commons. But while Adams boycotts the place on principle - why should he bother with the Commons when he can go to Chequers - Galloway seems to spend much of his spare time gallivanting with Muslim women.

Gallivanting is a generous word. Back in the Eighties, Galloway seems to have discovered Muslim women at the same time he discovered Muslim politics. He soon dumped his pudgy, pasty Scottish climes for the sunny, sultry Middle East - along with his first wife Elaine.

But his second marriage, to Amineh Abu-Zayyad, a Muslim scientist 11 years his junior, did not mean monogamy. Four days before the General Election, Amineh announced that she was filing for divorce, telling the Sunday Times she was fed up of her husband's serial womanising with sundry Muslim groupies.

Galloway tried to convince Amineh that it was a political plot to discredit him. But Amineh delivered a withering verdict on him, and his new party: "I should tell you that when he told me his new party was called Respect, I went upstairs and cried. How can he call it this when he doesn't even treat his own wife with respect?"

The third black mark against Galloway is that his socialism is a sham. Earlier this month, he shamefully parachuted into the largely Muslim constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow, stoked the anti-war passions of many Muslim men, and stole the seat of one of the few black women MPs in parliament - the articulate and brilliant Oona King - by just 823 votes.

But not all Muslims were taken in. Many Iraqis were incensed by Galloway's gormless support for Saddam. But when Salam Pax, the Baghdad blogger, doorstepped Galloway on Newsnight and asked him to justify his admiration for Saddam, Galloway ran away like a rabbit.

Like Saddam Hussein, Galloway is basically a bully. Two years ago, in TCD, he bullied a young American student into silence by telling him to lose weight rather than replying to his question. Last week the same tactics in the Senate gave him a minor media victory - but at a price.

Galloway has now drawn down on himself the attention of one of the most powerful political sniffer dogs on earth. He had better be squeaky clean. If not, his blustering Senate performance will prove to be, in the words of Shakespeare, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

Gwen Halley

cdebru

pork99 wrote:

Here you go

what about it

if the best that the indo can come up with is a rehash of the fox news slant it says more about the indo than Galloway

he was unfaithful to his wife well if that was a reason to write politicians we could write off quite a few in this country
it smacks of desperation

he is a champagne socialist well it would not take a brain surgeon to work that one out
But the obvious question is if lining his own pockets and feathering his nest was all he was interested in why not do that with the champagne socialists in New Labour

and the desperate attempts to paint him as saddams best friend despite the fact that he met him twice and has a history stretching back before the first gulf war of criticisng him



Yes Saddam was an evil bastard and he has blood on his hands but he is not alone in either of these two traits stand up blair and bush I'm sure given the Oppurtunity Saddam could come up with the same kind of excuses for his mass murder as Blair and Bush do for theirs.

Hobbes

You really need to watch the tribual if you haven't already....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4556113.stm#

Pork99, the article you posted is tripe compared to the hearing.

A Dub in Glasgo

pork99 wrote:

Here you go

TWO years ago I saw George Galloway seduce a student audience in TCD. While he was speaking, I too fell under the spell. But when it was over I had second thoughts. Last week he mesmerised the British and Irish media with the same mix of bravado and bluster. Like me, the BBC and RTE too, will be forced to have second thoughts.

Irrelevant comparison as I have no idea what Galloway said 2 years ago. The writer does not go into any detail whatsoever.

Galloway never gave a satisfactory answer to Senator Carl Levin's questions about his relationship with Fawaz Zureikat, the Jordanian businessman who traded in Iraqi oil, who was also chairman of Galloway's charity the Mariam Appeal.

Satisfactory? what does that exactly mean. Galloway stated that the Mariam appeal got a donation from Zureikat and he did not investigate what part of Zureikats money it came from. I do not see the bruise.

Levin left other bruises. When Galloway barked: "You supported the war", the anti-war Democrat never lifted his voice but simply said: "Sorry about that, I didn't. But that's beside the point . . . You're wrong in your facts."

Galloway stated that he was talking collectively about the US Senate.

Galloway often gets his facts wrong. For example, he told the media he had offered to testify to the Senate in advance of last week's report. Senator Norm Coleman refreshed his memory: Galloway had not contacted them "by any means, including but not limited to telephone, fax, email, letter, Morse code or carrier pigeon". Galloway later retracted his claim.

I will have to believe that the writer is telling the truth

No matter what the breathless BBC and RTE groupies believe, Galloway's brazen performance would have alerted rather than allayed the Senators' suspicions. Senate subcommittees are a lot tougher than the slipshod British media - and they have the money and the means to go deeper into Galloway's past. There is a good chance that Galloway's gloating last Tuesday was premature.

lol, if the US Senate had anything on Galloway, it would have been presented. The fact of the matter is... they did not. This is just speculation which proves sour grapes on the part of the writer.

Meantime, Galloway, himself an adept manufacturer of media smokescreens, can bask in the smitten embrace of the British and Irish media establishments. But even from a liberal or leftist perspective there are at least three major black marks against George Galloway.

Nothing really said in that paragraph

The first black mark is his slumming with people who smell of sulphur. Following a cosy meeting with Saddam in August 2002, Galloway reported back to anybody interested in tyrant rehab, that Saddam had "a gentle handshake" and was "surprisingly diffident".

In a 'Hitler was kind to his pet Alsatian Blondie so he must be OK after all' moment, Galloway recounted that over some Quality Street in "a tastefully-lit room" with "artfully-arranged flowers", Saddam had shared anecdotes about Churchill. "Hardly the heart of darkness" the gullible Galloway concluded.

What is this writer on?

Galloway did not spoil his Saddam moment by bringing up the killing of 182,000 Kurds, the murder of 300,000 Iraqis, the death of 600,000 Iraqis during the war with Iran, the torture chambers, the mass graves, the crimes against women committed by his depraved sons, Uday and Quasay. Not a word.

He was there to try and get Saddam to readmit the UN experts. As Galloway himself stated in the successful libel case against the Telegraph when they had used the same argument as Ms Halley

'I was trying to stop a disastrous war. I wanted to convey the feeling of the Iraqi people - that they should extend an olive branch to Great Britain," he said.

"I had spent many years trying to do that. That's why I asked Saddam to allow the weapons inspectors back in.'

But even small-time terrorists seem to turn Galloway on. Back in 1990, well before the IRA ceasefire, Galloway marched alongside Gerry Adams to campaign against British policy in Ireland.

Galloway has been a supporter of his countrys withdrawal from Ireland. Is that a crime now? You had better tell the millions in the UK who would like to pull out of Ireland.

In fairness Adams never got anything like the serenade Saddam got from Galloway in January 1994 when he praised the Baghdad Butcher in the following fulsome terms: "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability." Galloway claimed, unconvincingly, that he had been lauding the Iraqi people.

A quote which Gallway has since regretted

The second black mark is Galloway's fondness for capitalist fleshpots. Although Channel 4's leading leftie, Jon Snow, detailed Galloway's macho assault on Capitol Hill with girlie glee, he missed many vital visual clues to Galloway's smoked-salmon style of socialism.

Is the writer on some kind of acid?

Like the Louis Vuitton luggage bag Galloway carried into the Senate hearing. Like the perma-tan, perfected at his Portugal retreat the week before. Like the expensive, super-sized Havana cigar stuck to him like a cosmetic implant. Like the expensive suits - another trait he shares with Adams.

This really is an expression of envy from Ms Halley.

But designer suits are not all that Adams and Galloway have in common. Neither men spend much time in the House of Commons. But while Adams boycotts the place on principle - why should he bother with the Commons when he can go to Chequers - Galloway seems to spend much of his spare time gallivanting with Muslim women.

Cheap shot (not like the Indo to get their SF reference in) and a smarmy comment about Galloways wife!

Gallivanting is a generous word. Back in the Eighties, Galloway seems to have discovered Muslim women at the same time he discovered Muslim politics. He soon dumped his pudgy, pasty Scottish climes for the sunny, sultry Middle East - along with his first wife Elaine.

But his second marriage, to Amineh Abu-Zayyad, a Muslim scientist 11 years his junior, did not mean monogamy. Four days before the General Election, Amineh announced that she was filing for divorce, telling the Sunday Times she was fed up of her husband's serial womanising with sundry Muslim groupies.

Galloway tried to convince Amineh that it was a political plot to discredit him. But Amineh delivered a withering verdict on him, and his new party: "I should tell you that when he told me his new party was called Respect, I went upstairs and cried. How can he call it this when he doesn't even treat his own wife with respect?"

I have cracked it... Galloway must have spurned Ms Halleys advances. Nothing else can explain the bitterness in her rants.

The third black mark against Galloway is that his socialism is a sham. Earlier this month, he shamefully parachuted into the largely Muslim constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow, stoked the anti-war passions of many Muslim men, and stole the seat of one of the few black women MPs in parliament - the articulate and brilliant Oona King - by just 823 votes.

And? Is there something wrong in doing a bit of research to find the most likely seat that will vote in your message.

Didn't the top tory in Scotland get dumped out of his seat at the last election. Now he was parachuted into the Tory safe seat in Chelsea!!

But not all Muslims were taken in. Many Iraqis were incensed by Galloway's gormless support for Saddam. But when Salam Pax, the Baghdad blogger, doorstepped Galloway on Newsnight and asked him to justify his admiration for Saddam, Galloway ran away like a rabbit.

Like Saddam Hussein, Galloway is basically a bully. Two years ago, in TCD, he bullied a young American student into silence by telling him to lose weight rather than replying to his question. Last week the same tactics in the Senate gave him a minor media victory - but at a price.

More sideshows from Ms Halley

Galloway has now drawn down on himself the attention of one of the most powerful political sniffer dogs on earth. He had better be squeaky clean. If not, his blustering Senate performance will prove to be, in the words of Shakespeare, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

There was me thinking they had already investigated him and found him guilty!

Gwen Halley

Who?

That article is a pure sideshow to the subject of the US Senate investigation. To summarise, the 3 'black' marks against Galloway are:

1. He met Saddam

2. He likes to spend his money

3. He is not really a Socialist


Wow... that really demolishes everything Galloway said in his 47 minute appearance. Did the Indo actuall pay for this article? So, pork99, how exactly does that prove that that student lefties are easily impressed. Where you impressed with the musings of Ms. Halley?

cdebru

you forgot the other black mark

he was unfaithful to his wife

pork99

Wow... that really demolishes everything Galloway said in his 47 minute appearance. Did the Indo actuall pay for this article? So, pork99, how exactly does that prove that that student lefties are easily impressed. Where you impressed with the musings of Ms. Halley?

I was fairly impressed. I would love to see Galloway being found guilty of taking pay-offs from Saddam. I was revolted by the spectacle of him sucking up to that tyrant. I would love to see that pompous smug self-righteous little arsehole carted off to prison (with Rumsfeld in the next-door cell in an ideal world).

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any more than flimsy evidence against him. Making these accusations on not much evidence only gives that charlatan wankstain credibility and a platform that he doesn't deserve.

mycroft

pork99 wrote:

I was fairly impressed. I would love to see Galloway being found guilty of taking pay-offs from Saddam. I was revolted by the spectacle of him sucking up to that tyrant. I would love to see that pompous smug self-righteous little arsehole carted off to prison (with Rumsfeld in the next-door cell in an ideal world).

And as I pointed out earlier in a different thread the telegraph didn't even try to defend it's allegations in court they used the qualified priviledge defence. A fecking joke.

As for the sucking up. I'd love to hear the voice track of that rumsfeld photo. Galloway was trying to convince Saddam to allow weapons inspectors back in, and I dont think "Oi Saddam you camel humping greased mustasched asshole, quit dicking around and let the inspectors back in" may not have been the best tactic with a crazed lunatic.

As for the article the 90,000 holiday home in portugal or luggage is a fecking joke.

plenty of politicals have had affairs, thats not an excuse just weakness of the british press.

And the Oona king istance, it was an election, oona king was parachuted into that consituence to win votes, why shouldn't he engage in the same activity

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any more than flimsy evidence against him. Making these accusations on not much evidence only gives that charlatan wankstain credibility and a platform that he doesn't deserve.

So basically you're admitting theres no evidence or scant evidence but then feel that calling him a "charlatan wankstain" despite admiting the case aganist him is pretty poor. Do you get the base irony of the above?

Hobbes

cdebru wrote:

you forgot the other black mark

he was unfaithful to his wife

So was Clinton.. So was Bush (Don't believe me? Go google 'tammy phillips bush'). So was a host of others, although up until recently those kind of scandals meant people resigned from British politics.

A Dub in Glasgo

pork99 wrote:

I was fairly impressed. I would love to see Galloway being found guilty of taking pay-offs from Saddam. I was revolted by the spectacle of him sucking up to that tyrant. I would love to see that pompous smug self-righteous little arsehole carted off to prison (with Rumsfeld in the next-door cell in an ideal world).

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any more than flimsy evidence against him. Making these accusations on not much evidence only gives that charlatan wankstain credibility and a platform that he doesn't deserve.

You were impressed by the Indo article? I think what this proves, more than anything else, is how your own personal distaste for someone can cloud your judgement. That article was the biggest load of rehashed waffle I have seen in a long time. The biggest surprise for me? Well there are 2 - That people were still impressed by the article and will now think they have the means to challenge Galloway and secondly, somebody got paid for writing that rehashed waffle.

Lemming

Pork99, as much as I am loath to say this ... I am in complete agreement with Dub In Glasgow & Cdebru (OMFG ... the end is nigh! REPENT!!!!) in that that article writen by Halley contains nothing other than innuendos and hearsay. She offers nothing other than "her word", and to be honest, the language she uses - leftie, etc - give away her thinking as quite right wing.

The entire article is, in short, full or rhetorical bullsh*t. Her own masturbatory fantasy contribution to this entire joke of a Senate subcommittee "case".

cdebru

Hobbes wrote:

So was Clinton.. So was Bush (Don't believe me? Go google 'tammy phillips bush'). So was a host of others, although up until recently those kind of scandals meant people resigned from British politics.

sorry hobbes i was being sarcastic

I mean even John Major managed to be unfaithful to his wife

And Bertie Ahern, charlie McCreevy...

The list goes on and the thread goes off topic... or is this thread about adultery and anything at all related to Georgeous George?
Please keep this thread to the topic of George, the senate and Iraq.
If ye want to talk about anything else,open a new thread.

Von

Like Saddam Hussein, Galloway is basically a bully. Two years ago, in TCD, he bullied a young American student into silence by telling him to lose weight rather than replying to his question.

I happened to be at that debate and this is inaccurate. The student was not American and he did not ask Galloway a question. He had spoken in favour of the war (saddam is the new hitler etc), and iirc, later on Galloway pointed to him and said 'you want to send our troops to war and you wouldn't even pass the medical.'

Trojan

How dare you bring fact into this discussion.

It was nice to see someone give the Senate such a talking down to, regardless of his own questionable position.

Spacedog

Oona King said herself that Galloway won fairly and that she didn't consider that her seat was 'stolen', she also said that her being black should not be a factor in critising him or anyone, the accusation came from Paxman on the night of the election on BBC. I find it strange that she supported the war so whole-hartedly when there was such opposition in her own constituncy.

I pissed myself laughing watching Galloway testify, I thought of Bertie's arselicking of George Bush (who IMO is whe world's biggest tyrant) and wished our politicians had the balls to speak the truth more often.

Galloway is a politician though, and as such I don't trust him, if he did profit from oil deals I'd be dissapointed but wouldn't be shocked, but it's a nice change to see an MP still representing the views of his constituncy 5 minutes after being elected.

Flukey

He was right in a lot of what he said, like about his and Rumsfeld's respective visits to Saddam and their purpose. As we all know, he was right in that the war was wrong.

toiletduck

Flukey wrote:

He was right in a lot of what he said, like about his and Rumsfeld's respective visits to Saddam and their purpose. As we all know, he was right in that the war was wrong.

first of all, not everyone agrees the war was wrong. secondly, do you really believe Galloway went to see Saddam because he was looking out for the ordinary Iraqi?! He didnt have to go and shake the hand of the tyrant, at least Rumsfeld (who i have little time for) only went there because his boss (President Regan) asked him to.

Flukey

I know not everyone agrees the war was wrong, but it was. 2 years after it started and I have yet to hear one single reason for it that stands up to scrutiny. Those against it rebuffed all the excuses given and every day that passes they are proved even more right. We could go through all the proof of that like the way terrorism has increased not decreased, that Saddam is no longer killing Iraqis, but the allies are now doing the job for him. Anyway, that debate is long over and well won by those against the war. They won it even before the war started and that is being proved more and more every day.

As to Galloway visiting Saddam, well whatever he was up to, he wasn't there selling arms to him. America was selling arms to him, and now complain about Saddam having them. They complain about him invading countries, when they gave him their full support and encouragement in invading one of them. Had the main export of the other one been something like rice, they would not have batted an eyelid over it. Again, we are back to shooting down excuses for the war. So whatever Galloway was up to, the American government, both present and past, are in no position to complain.

toiletduck

Flukey wrote:

Anyway, that debate is long over and well won by those against the war. They won it even before the war started and that is being proved more and more every day.

if the anti-war side won the debate then there would have been no war!
anyways i dont think we should start debating the war again, there are plenty of other threads to continue that in.

Dont forget that America aided both sides in the Iran-Iraq war, they didnt want to see either side having an outright victory. If the main export of Kuwait been rice then probably no one who have batted an eyelid, as you put it, but it isnt if Saddam had been allowed to get away with that invasion he surely would have taken Saudi Arabia and therefore control most of the worlds oil supply which would have been a disaster for the worlds economy.

anyways back to Galloway, i would like to hear the truth of just what was his relationship with Iraq. I suspect he was involved in illegal oil dealings.