Is George Galloway in trouble?

TomF

The byzantine complexities of it all are a little too much for me to unravel, but a U.S. Senate report published yesterday deals with George Galloway and his connections with the Food for Oil program (scam?). I wonder if Galloway could be in any danger of being brought to trial for perjury. I suppose it could only happen if he set foot again in the U.S. Maybe it would be like the case of the old IRA man recently taken into custody in the North on a warrant from the U.S. then released on bail to return across to the Republic.

The report is a long one at
http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/PSIREPORTGallowayOct05FINAL.pdf

dahamsta

He said on More4 News last night that if they charge him he'll be on the next plane over to answer to the charges, and he doesn't seem the type to back down easily. It'd be a big risk for him though, five years in jail if convicted and I doubt he'd get any diplomatic easing off since he doesn't have a whole lot of friends. I tend to think that's it's a witch hunt, but then I would.

billy the squid

He doesn't come accross as the type of person who has something to worry about. and his last performance in the states was very confident. I also think it is an effort to divert attention from the impending fitzmas (Fitzgerald) indidtments. The Mother of All Smoke Screens is the best way to describe it.

Zombrex

Ken Shabby wrote:

I tend to think that's it's a witch hunt, but then I would.

Agreed ... personally I can't stand Galloway, but he does seem to be pretty convincing when he says he didn't do this, and it did tear apart the case against him when he appeared before the Senate. It seems like a cynical political witch hunt on the part of the Senate cause they don't understand Galloway at all (how could he be so close to iraq and not be corrupt? kinda thing)

Of course he could also be completely guilty but also completely mad, and really believe he is innocent, just like someone like Archer or Hamilton. But I doubt it.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

but he does seem to be pretty convincing when he says he didn't do this,

...or at least relatively confident that it can't be proven.

jc

billy the squid

billy the squid wrote:

I also think it is an effort to divert attention from the impending fitzmas (Fitzgerald) indidtments. The Mother of All Smoke Screens is the best way to describe it.

I'd have also thought that were it not for the fact that democrat members of the senate committee investigating him are just as vociferous in calling for him to be done for perjury and nailed for his ex wifes apparent oil for food money laundering.

netwhizkid

This guy is comical i liked the way he patronised the senatorial committee against him and told them basically to get F8*%ked ! i especially like how he enguired how a mister rumsfeld had met saddam hussein exactly the same amount of times as himself. Only rumsfeld was selling guns to saddam, i guess the same guns that have killed some of the 2,000+ Americans in Iraq.

Dave!

Yeah I admire the way Galloway speaks his mind, doesn't seem to take sh*t, and stands by his beliefs (leaving Labour over the war)... I'm a little nervous about his means of getting votes, though. He's certainly one of the most entertaining politicians of today, that's for sure!

Orizio

DaveMcG wrote:

Yeah I admire the way Galloway speaks his mind, doesn't seem to take sh*t, and stands by his beliefs (leaving Labour over the war)... I'm a little nervous about his means of getting votes, though. He's certainly one of the most entertaining politicians of today, that's for sure!

Really?I still despise him because of his depraved actions with Saddam during the sanctions.Admiring people that admire and praise genocidal dictators is not really my thing,no matter how much he tried to insult the US senate.

Sadly I doubt he will get locked up,but hell I can always dream.;)

Dave!

Well, one could admire Hitler without being anti-Semitic(although I personally don't, lol)... I admire his (GG's) straight-talking ways, and his eloquence, and the way he's being attacked by every newspaper, media station, etc., and is still going. His arguments make sense, too... When he's asked about something, he'll generally just say explicitly (and I suppose quitely extensively) what he thinks about it, whereas most other politicians wouldn't have the guts to in case they lose votes. I guess cos he's only in a small party, he can afford to speak his mind.

A Dub in Glasgo

Privileged to have voted for him when I stayed in the West End of Glasgow

Orizio

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Privileged to have voted for him when I stayed in the West End of Glasgow

Why were you privileged to do such a thing exactly?

Orizio

DaveMcG wrote:

Well, one could admire Hitler without being anti-Semitic(although I personally don't, lol)... I admire his (GG's) straight-talking ways, and his eloquence, and the way he's being attacked by every newspaper, media station, etc., and is still going. His arguments make sense, too... When he's asked about something, he'll generally just say explicitly (and I suppose quitely extensively) what he thinks about it, whereas most other politicians wouldn't have the guts to in case they lose votes. I guess cos he's only in a small party, he can afford to speak his mind.

He is still going because he is spouting populist rhetoric designed to infactuate as many 'liberals' and socialists as possible.He spouts nothing but conspiracy theories,or the typical unoriginal 'It was all about the oil!!!'etc we here just about everyday from everybody in this country.Indeed the manner of his political survival is almost as disgusting as his ass licking of Saddam.Almost.

He is indeed good at insulting people though,I'll give him that.;)

Spacedog

George Galloway has a bad habit of being right about this war stuff. As the net closes around the motivation for the war and the truth emerges, it's turning out that these ranting anti-war liberal crackpots were right all along :eek:

Neuro

TomF wrote:

I wonder if Galloway could be in any danger of being brought to trial for perjury. I suppose it could only happen if he set foot again in the U.S.

The US and the UK have strong reciprocal extradition agreements, and, if Galloway was charged with perjury, I'm sure the UK wouldn't hesitate in handing him over. Mr Galloway has claimed that he would fly to the US if charged. He is a smart man, and if the US authorities charged him, he would certainly take flight from the UK. But, instead of flying to DC, he would most likely head to Syria, a dictatorship for which he has a great fondness, or some other state that shares his hatred of the US and lacks reciprocal extradition treaties.

Some sites and articles about Galloway:
Unmitigated Galloway - The Weekly Standard (May 20, 2005)
The Truth About George Galloway

I think the following paragraphs from the article above perfectly capture Mr Galloway's true position: he is first and foremost an Anti-American, and is, therefore, willing to support any regime or despot, no matter how cruel or vicious, or any campaign so long as it affords him the opportunity to denounce and attack the US and its foreign policy. Galloway doesn't give a damn about the people of Iraq - his sole concern is the promotion of his communist ideology!

"There came a time, in the late 1970s, when the Iraqi Communist party realized the horrific mistake it had made in joining the Baath party's Revolutionary Command Council. The Communists in Baghdad, as I can testify from personal experience and interviews at the time, began to protest--too late--at the unbelievable cruelty of Saddam's purge of the army and the state: a prelude to his seizure of total power in a full-blown fascist coup. The consequence of this, in Britain, was the setting-up of a group named CARDRI: the Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq. Many democratic socialists and liberals supported this organization, but there was no doubting that its letterhead and its active staff were Communist volunteers. And Galloway joined it. At the time, it is at least half true to say, the United States distinctly preferred Saddam's Iraq to Khomeini's Iran, and acted accordingly. Thus a leftist could attack Saddam for being, among other things, an American client. We ought not to forget the shame of American policy at that time, because the preference for Saddam outlived the war with Iran, and continued into the postwar Anfal campaign to exterminate the Kurds. In today's "antiwar" movement, you may still hear the echoes of that filthy compromise, in the pseudo-ironic jibe that "we" used to be Saddam's ally.


But mark the sequel. It must have been in full knowledge, then, of that repression, and that genocide, and of the invasion of Kuwait and all that ensued from it, that George Galloway shifted his position and became an outright partisan of the Iraqi Baath. There can be only two explanations for this, and they do not by any means exclude one another. The first explanation, which would apply to many leftists of different stripes, is that anti-Americanism simply trumps everything, and that once Saddam Hussein became an official enemy of Washington the whole case was altered."

Snickers Man

Neuro wrote:

Some sites and articles about Galloway:
Unmitigated Galloway - The Weekly Standard (May 20, 2005)
The Truth About George Galloway

Yeah OK. A site with the domain name 'hanggalloway.co.uk' is hardly likely to be objective about him. Some of the links on it are to articles in the Daily Telegraph which he claims in his testimony to the US Senate hearing which was delivered under oath, to have been the subject of a libel action which he won. There are also articles from the Christian Science Monitor which he deals with in his testimony too.

And the Weekly Standard one is written by Christopher Hitchens, FFS. How can anybody believe a word that jackass says?

Whatever the truth is about him, and I concede his defence that his brown nosing about 'your indefatigability, your courage, etc etc' was said to the Iraqi people in general and not Sadam is a bit weak, but his speech to the Senate was pretty powerful oratory. Especially the last bit about the war and how his prognosis differed from the US.

At least he was write about those bits.

Zebra3

Orizio wrote:

He spouts nothing but conspiracy theories,or the typical unoriginal 'It was all about the oil!!!'etc we here just about everyday from everybody in this country.

Well why else is the US so interested in the region? :rolleyes:

I recall seeing a report on ITN's News at Ten in the mid 80s about Saddam's army gassing Kurds and the reporter asking how could the West be allied with such a scumbag. Fast forward 20 yeards and that event is was used as the excuse to oust his regime.

Anyone who believes America's intentions in the Middle East are noble is a complete and utter fool. They are there to protect their economic interests. End of story.

TomF

Spacedog wrote:

George Galloway has a bad habit of being right about this war stuff. As the net closes around the motivation for the war and the truth emerges, it's turning out that these ranting anti-war liberal crackpots were right all along :eek:

Isn't the memory of the Internet wonderful? Here are what three of those crackpots said:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 on CNN.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 on the Washington Post

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 on the Senate Floor.

See "Flying Blind" at :http://www.fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/

billy the squid

Spacedog referred to "raving anti-war liberals" two of the three quotes you made were by pro-war liberals. Your references does not detract that it is looking likely that the "anti-war" liberals were right. Not all liberals were or are anti-war.

Therefore I fail to see your point.

By the way George W bush said that Sadam Hussein was buying yellowcake uranium from Niger. He stood up infront of his own house of representatives and said it. Does that make him the crackpot your trying to make Hillary Clinton and Al Gore out to be?

I think you are more concerned with justifying your belief that right wing and pro-iraq war policy rather actually addressing questions being put to you.

Every time a US related thread comes up here, rather than stating your own views on an issue, you always try to find some connection to the democratic party.

feel free to return in four days with a non-responsive post attacking the left rather than addressing the matter at hand like you usually do.

Orizio

Well why else is the US so interested in the region? :rolleyes:

To put pressure on Saudi Arabia through its oil market,because of the geniune belief that Saddam had WMD's,to spread democracy throughout the area alongside probable military action in Syria and Iran and to elimanate one of Isreal's enemies.Different reasons for different sections int he Bush government.The idea that the US invaded a country purely for its oil reserves(despite getting oil reserves from the country prior to the war and then nationalizing the oil industry),at massive expense and political risk to the republicans,is prepostorous.

Anyone who believes America's intentions in the Middle East are noble is a complete and utter fool. They are there to protect their economic interests. End of story.

I guess thats settled then...:rolleyes:

Zebra3

Zebra3 wrote:

Anyone who believes America's intentions in the Middle East are noble is a complete and utter fool. They are there to protect their economic interests. End of story.

I don't believe their intentions are noble, but I respect the right of others to hold differing opinions to me. And some people may believe the Americans are their for something more than oil.

Maybe if there was a little more respect and a little less intolerance all around the world...