Gallows heroic stance

Apperantly not allowed to show news articles.

and need to add some opinion.

Galloway said some realle great things and annhilated what he called the neocons. If only more politicians like this existed, who stand up for the truth. The world would be a better place.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.informationclearinghouse.info...
The full video stream can be seen from the above site.

Mother of All smokescreens: Galloway angrily denies oil claim
By: Sky/BBC on: 18.05.2005 [00:24] (2158 reads)

George Galloway has dismissed the allegations as ridiculous. The UK MP denied ever being involved in oil trading and accused senators of being "cavalier" with justice.

(7619 bytes)

George Galloway has angrily dismissed allegations by US senators he profited from oil dealings with Saddam Hussein.

"I am not now nor have I ever been an oil trader and neither has anyone on my behalf," Mr Galloway told senators.

"l have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one sold one and neither has anybody on my behalf."



[edit on 19-5-2005 by Syrian Sister]

Im am watching the footage now and I can honestly say that I havnt smiled so much in ages. Its funny how all the neo cons run and hide when they are brought back down to reality.

Galloway is as guilty as sin. His curt, self-righteous exercise in blame-shifting is so transparent as to be comical. Of course, he attacks the US on matters that in hindsight are apparent, but of course, it was not his nation who suffered 3000 deaths in a single day. I hope they string up his lousy, self-righeous buttocks.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Galloway is as guilty as sin. His curt, self-righteous exercise in blame-shifting is so transparent as to be comical. Of course, he attacks the US on matters that in hindsight are apparent, but of course, it was not his nation who suffered 3000 deaths in a single day. I hope they string up his lousy, self-righeous buttocks.

He's not the only one engaging in blame shifting.
The US government knew about the oil smuggling and allowed it to happen and US companies paid 52% of all kickbacks to Saddam and purchased 40% of Iraq's oil from 1998-2003.

In spite of this, they decided to go after anyone who opposed the Iraq war and make it look like they were the guilty ones.

Gallows opposition was not done in hindsight, he forewarned the US and UK governments about going into Iraq.

Your mention of 3,000 deaths in a single day has nothing to do with Iraq so I don't know why you brought it up.

BTW, I hope they string up George Bush's lousy buttocks someday, along with Cheney and Wolfowitz.

I watched the footage and IMO Galloway made the committee look like a bunch of weak hypocrites totally out of their depth with him.
(and I'd bet heavily that that is how any of the non current US right's fan-base saw it too)

It was quite obvious that they have nothing of any real credible substance on him.......and his comment that he had met Saddam as often as Rumsfeld was hilarious.

My bet is that there will be those on the committee who will simpy continue to assert that Galloway is 'guilty' but I'd give odds that they come up with nothing of substance or credibility.

(BTW, did anyone else catch the story that a 'unit' has been at work in Iraq producing false documents with the correct paper, stamps, watermarks etc etc since the Iraqi collapse?)

Of course if I'm wrong and they have got anything credible and of substance we'll all know because they'll be demanding him back to face the stiff penalties lying to such a committee brings, right?

(and George being less than Tony Blair's best mate is hardly going to have the backing of the UK gov.......

.... so, go for it, let's see the colour of your money if you think you have what it takes.
Yeah right )

[edit on 20-5-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Galloway is as guilty as sin.

What evidence leads you to this conclusion??

I wouldn't be surprised at all if he was guilty, but there doesn't seem to be any sort of evidence that can convict him. These papers, they're almost, what, a year old now? No court, anywhere, has convicted him of anything like what they allege, probably because the documents are not enough to convict him.

Why, for example, didn't the US Senate arrest him after the inquiry, if the documents prove guilt??

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why, for example, didn't the US Senate arrest him after the inquiry, if the documents prove guilt??

More then likely he is traveling as a diplomatic agent possessing proper identification, therefore he may not be arrested or detained.

[edit on 5/20/2005 by shots]

Why, for example, didn't the US Senate arrest him after the inquiry, if the documents prove guilt??

because they havent got the balls to do it.