It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Moreover, the bombings have failed - despite Mr George Galloway's best efforts - to undermine support for the British presence in Iraq. The proportion wanting British troops brought home quickly has fallen and the proportion who now want Britain to retain its close ties with the US has risen. The section of the chart headed "Assessing performance" tells a story of which Britons can be proud.
George Galloway, the sharp-tongued member of Parliament who flummoxed a U.S. Senate panel at a hearing in May on the Iraq oil-for-food scandal, went first. "We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain," Galloway told Parliament on Thursday. "Tragically, Londoners have now paid the price of the government ignoring such warnings."
Galloway, who was drummed out of Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labor party for his opposition to the Iraq war, drew sharp criticism from both sides of the aisle for his comments, with Conservatives calling him a "disgrace" and Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram accusing him of "dipping his poisonous tongue in a pool of blood."
However, George Galloway, the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, broke the all-party consensus by calling for Mr Blair and George Bush to resign.
Speaking at a news conference near the London bus explosion, Mr Galloway said the anti-war movement had a duty to speak out against the policies he said were to blame for the spiral of violence.
"We have to put into reverse the policies which have led us to this."
Mr Galloway said the safety of the British public would continue to be threatened unless the government changed course over its policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The only people who have tried so far are one sacked Labour Party politician who used to be an honored guest in Saddam Hussein's Baghdad, and who commented Thursday that "London paid the price," and a warmed-over left-wing student radical of 1968, Tariq Ali, who called the bombing "The Price of Occupation." Scion of a wealthy Pakistani family, Oxford graduate and now a prosperous TV producer, Ali should know all about price.
Neither of these men is taken very seriously, even though Galloway likes to don the mantle of martyr as he sues publications that dare suggest he was on Saddam's payroll, or makes a flying visit to testify before a U.S. Senate committee that accused him of benefiting from Saddam's 'oil for food' scam that has tarnished the reputation of the United Nations. He won re-election to parliament as an independent in the East End of London, in a majority Muslim district (mainly of Bangladeshi immigrants) with a well-funded campaign that was backed by the mosques, in the name of a [party called 'respect' that traded on Islamic resentments. If the election were held again today, after bombs on the doorstep of the Bangladeshi district, and with all the mosques and British Islamic groups denouncing the terrorists, Galloway would have a problem.
Originally posted by Rasputin13
Galloway is so clearly involved in the Oil for Food scandal that he's just trying to throw all the attention somewhere else. There is so much proof of his criminal involvement and violations of sanctions, that he should be sitting behind bars rather than appearing on TV with his liberal hate speech while the victims of this horrible and cowardly attack are still being dug out. What a scumbag.
God Bless Great Britain
Also, British Labor MP George Galloway, a strident foe of taking action against Saddam, is listed as a recipient or co-recipient of 19.5 million barrels.
Regardless of what you think of the man, he seems to be pointing out the obvious: Whatever strategies the US and UK were using the fight terror seem not to have resulted in increased safety.
Galloway is so clearly involved in the Oil for Food scandal that he's just trying to throw all the attention somewhere else. There is so much proof of his criminal involvement and violations of sanctions
Mr Galloway made a promise to potential donors. He wrote on House of Commons paper pledging that, after paying for Mariam’s treatment in a Glasgow hospital, the rest of the money would go to medical aid for Iraqi children. In fact, according to the Register of Members’ Interests, Mr Galloway spent the Mariam Appeal’s cash on 14 foreign trips to 15 countries, including eight visits to Iraq.
The appeal did not restrict itself to healing sick children. It became a pressure group campaigning to lift, and claiming to bust, sanctions imposed on Saddam’s regime, while supporting the “Palestinian intifada” and a boycott of Israel.
Even close supporters cannot shed much light on its finances. Sabah al-Mukhtar, from the Arab Lawyers’ Network in London, became vice-president of the appeal and joined Mr Galloway on a publicity-seeking bus trip from Westminster to Baghdad.
When the bus arrived in November 1999, Mr Galloway made a long speech describing Mr al-Mukhtar as “our comrade in arms” and hailing Saddam’s Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, as “my dear, dear friend”.
Mr Galloway has identified Fawaz Zukeirat as one of the main financial sponsors of the Mariam Appeal, along with the governments of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. The MP said the appeal received about £1 million in five years, more than half of that from the UAE Government. Mr al-Mukhtar, a former legal adviser to Iraq’s national oil company, told The Times yesterday that the money for the Mariam Appeal had come mainly from the ruler of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan, with small donations such as £5 and £2 from members of the public.
Originally posted by Apration
It is clear to me that Mr. Gallowy clearly has his enemies confused. To speak of the attackes on London as a retaliation because of the UK's support of the war in Iraq, and blame the British govornment for it, is just wrong. The support of the war may be the reason for the attacks (there is no way to know this early exactly who the culprit is), but the evil people who actually committed this crime against innocent people are the ones that are to blame. Why does he feel a need to put blame on the British government? They are only trying to stand up for freedom of the people. The real culprit is the people behind these attacks on the free people, all they are trying to do is put fear in the people and try to divert their governments from trying to spread freedom through out the world. What is soo wrong with trying to give people the power to VOTE for their leaders. Who will represent them in the world, and help make thier laws which they must live by. Shouldn't they have a VOICE??