Galloway bluster fails to convince Senate

[cal04]

Key points
• Galloway's testimony against accusations leaves US Senate bewildered
• Respect MP used meeting as platform for vocal criticism of Iraq war
• US Senate remains to unsure of Galloway's credibility and approach

Key quote
"I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is that Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns." - GEORGE GALLOWAY

GEORGE Galloway yesterday failed in his attempt to convince a sceptical US Senate investigative committee that he had not profited from oil dealings with Iraq under the UN’s controversial oil-for-food programme. Despite a typically barnstorming performance full of bluster and rhetorical flourishes, the former Glasgow Kelvin MP was pinned down by persistent questioning over his business relationship with Fawaz Zureikat, the chairman of the Mariam Appeal - set up to assist a four-year-old Iraqi girl suffering from leukaemia.

And it was a Democrat senator, Carl Levin, rather than the Republican committee chairman, Norm Coleman, who gave him the hardest time as Mr Galloway sought to turn the tables on his inquisitors, leaving him no closer to clearing his name than when he took his seat in front of the sub-committee of the Senate’s homeland security and government affairs committee in Washington. Time and again, Mr Levin questioned him, requesting wearily that he deliver a straight answer to a straight question. But Mr Galloway could, or would not.
The Respect MP clearly thought he came out on top, and said so bluntly afterwards, describing the chairman as "not much of a lyncher".

Asked whether Mr Galloway violated his oath to tell the truth before the committee, Mr Coleman said: "I don’t know. We’ll have to look over the record. I just don’t think he was a credible witness."
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=540962005

(no Senators, you failed)

[eleny]

1. Fuck the Senate

[ProudDad]

57. Exactly my response

I was going to write this, you beat me to it!

[GHOSTDANCER]

139. Fuqin brain dead corporate whores. This is what democracy breeds?

Full video here. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4556113.stm>

[Zhade]

2. What a fucking joke. Is this a rw hit rag?

I confess to not being aware of its nature, but it sure reads like propaganda.

Galloway fucking OWNED Congress.

[burrowowl]

43. No, it isn't RW

it is treating the encounter as one would a debate. Given the denseness and denial and coupability of the Senate (on all sides) in the crimes against Iraq and almost ignoring the 52% of gain from the oil for food was by U$ companies under the U$ Legislative branch ...
The Scotsman is only pointing out that the rules of debate are different. The U$ no longer believes in debate but propaganda and witchhunting of anyone that is in opposition. The climate today is Long live McCarthy and the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
As the Chinese saying goes: May you live in interesting times.
ut it is strange some of the comments, is The Scotsman no longer what it was?

ANYONE HAVE A LINK TO TRANSCRIPT, I'VE GOT GG'S STATEMENT BUT NOT THE QUESTIONS.

[anitar1]

107. The transscript was carried on Common Dreams yesterday. n/t

[truth2power]

116. that transcript was Galloway's opening statement.

I'm also looking for a transcript of the entire hearing. Googled, but couldn't find it.

[chalky]

127. Please see post #124. The publisher, Andrew Neil

is a big-time Thatcherite. (Or should that be "was a big-time Thatcherite", since the old girl's days are over?)

[BillZBubb]

3. Levin is a god damned embarrassment to the Democrats.

The son of a bitch carried the Bushit agenda against Galloway. He should be ashamed. I listened to him and could not believe what I was hearing. DISGUSTING!

No wonder we Dems always end up on the losing end.

[oblivious]

9. What was Levin's goal? To discredit the US Senate?

It's shocking for an intelligent experienced legislator to have accused Galloway without even checking the evidence he was using. What an embarassment!

[Psephos]

25. Levin is a good senator, and not an embarrassment to the DP

Levin was trying to get something done that, in the larger scheme of things, is even more important than making Bushco look bad. Oil/Food had problems. You can fault Levin for his technique, but don't fault him for his motives. They're good, have been good for decades, and that's going to be true for as long as he's in office. No one's perfect (except me, of course), but Levin deserves credit for a long career of doing the right thing.

Now, the way I see it, there are two parts to this Galloway hearing.

The first part is simply "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." I think that feeling is why most of us were lustily cheering him on today. He stuck it to some assholes that *sorely* needed it, and he did it with style.

But the second part is more complex. I've learned from personal experience to be wary of people who reflexively can't or won't give a simple, straight answer. I didn't hear many (any?) of those today from Galloway. Did anyone else get a slight case of willies listening to him? Not for what he was saying, but for how he was saying it. A little too slick, like a lawyer. Something about him would not inspire me to want to be in a business deal with him.

So, although I got some serious fun from watching him today, I'm rather glad we are an ocean away from him. I say give him a wide berth. My troublemeter is flashing a warning light.

Peace.

[K-W]

27. He gave a very straight answer.

You clearly didnt see the entire testimony, he explained that it was proven that people had forged documents implicating him and that the only reason they have his name is a list from discredited Ahmed Chalabi. He dared them to produce actual proof of his wrongdoing and clearly denied any wrongdoing.

Levin is participating in a whitchunt, plain and simple and you are either lying or pretending to have seen something you didnt.

[Psephos]

30. I'm neither lying nor pretending.

Watch Rashomon sometime. Reasonable people can have different opinions.

You may have skipped the part where I mentioned I was cheering Galloway on, by the way. Feel free to read it again.

Peace.

[K-W]

32. You are just dodging the facts.

Galloway very clearly stated that neither he nor anyone acting on his behalf recieved any oil money. He referred to specific details in the senates account and refuted them.

If you saw the entire testimony, why would you make the statement you made? Why would you claim that he didnt answer the question?

There are only 3 possible options, you misheard, you didnt hear, or you heard and misrepresented. Im not accusing you of any in particular but it has to be one of them, because he very obviously answered the question. He categorically denied the alligations.

[Psephos]

35. Dude, read my O.P. - I don't know where you're coming from

What I said was, in my opinion, Galloway reminded me of some people I know who talk wonderfully, and whose arguments I agree with and admire, but for some ineffable reason I don't trust. If you've read Malcolm Gladwell's Blink you know what I'm saying.

Of course I didn't watch the entire testimony. I have a job. Never said I did - where did you get that idea?

There is a fourth possible option, btw. I watched, I heard, and arrived at a different opinion than you. Do you have a problem with that?

Peace.


Edit: added missing phrase

[K-W]

37. You said he didnt answer the question, which is simply not true.

That is the only statement I am referring to.

And why on earth would you claim to know that he didnt answer the question if you didnt see the whole testimony?

[Psephos]

46. Didn't answer "the question"? I never specified a question.

Maybe you're reading someone else's posts? WTF?

I don't know how you got started on this business about Galloway answering some specific question - I sure as hell didn't say it. Just drop it. I'm not writing an effin' Master's Thesis with footnotes here. I said Galloway reminds me of some people in my own life whose speaking style and personal manner I really admired, but who later caused me problems nonetheless. People I liked, but who turned out to be more complex than I originally realized. I then wondered if anyone else had the same reaction.

A simple NO would be fine. Sheesh.

You should find someone else to debate the details of Galloway's testimony with - I'm already on his side. I got a big kick out of the hearings -- even though I didn't spend a couple of hours glued to the tube watching the whole thing. You're barking up the wrong tree here.

[hector459]

103. One thing Galloway accomplished: Some American heard some things

that have been hidden from them by the MSM. They will have to deal with it or pretend Galloway is lying and Bush is a saint.

[Psephos]

105. I completely agree n/t

[smartvoter]

91. Yes. Coleman admitted on Dobbs they have only circumstantial evidence. nt

[bemildred]

28. I really don't feel like having my perceptions managed tonight.

He was not slick and he was not cute, he was just way fucking
smarter than they were, and he was direct like a meat axe.

Peace.

[Psephos]

29. That's ok, I don't feel like having my motives impugned.

So we're even.

On my planet, expressing an opinion is not perception management. It's simply expressing an opinion.

Peace.

[bemildred]

31. Expressing an opinion may or may not be perception management.

There is no particular connection. It is however, rather naive
to think that on the internet everybody is just out to share from
an excess of altruism and high spirits.

[Psephos]

34. So is the answer to piss on those who express different opinions?

That seems the opposite of naive and full of high spirits - namely, cynical and full of low spirits. From one extreme to the other.

Trying to paint me as some sort of Machiavellian perception manager is not very cool. Sorry we have different opinions, but I respect you even when we differ, and expect the same from you. If all we tolerate are identical statements of orthodoxy from each other, then we no longer are having a discussion, we're having a recitation.

Peace. I mean it.

[bemildred]

36. It works for me. Is your answer to get pissed off?

I am indeed cynical, and with reason.

If your opinions are innocent, they do a remarkably good
job of mirroring Senator Levin's attempts to attack
Galloway's credibility by saying he dodged the question,
was shifty, etc. when in fact Galloway was very forthright,
and they answered none of his arguments, zero.

The only point at which Galloway "dodged the question" was
at the end, when Levin tried for force him into a narrow and
legalistic context, and Galloway refused to take the issue out
of context to please Levin.

Peace. I mean it.

[Psephos]

39. Yes

when someone treats me with condescension. As if you'd be any different.

I expect better here.

Later, dude.

[bemildred]

40. Don't let the door hit your butt. nt

[Psephos]

50. Whatever n/t

[ebayfool]

64. Post search is wonderful! LOL - bemildred, I must ...

(check your pm, please!?)

[mallard]

56. Re: trying to get something done

In this case, he's not doing the right thing.

Levin is smearing against Galloway heavily for the sake of his own beloved nation - Israel. In this regard, he is not without company. Anyone with the mere inclination to decry Israeli abuses and speak up in support of the Palestinians will also get run through the mill of accusations and bad will.

The 'willies'? Is that it?

Galloway is a straight shooter and I don't see why anyone could honestly disparage him for holding his positions. He has been very articulate when silence about the atrocity in Iraq is the order of the day.

You indicate a gut-level distaste for the man, presumably because of similar unspecificied specific loyalties. Your 'thumbs down' could use a little more articulation so's not to seem defamatory.

Seeing and hearing George Galloway on the day's news coverage is like a breath of fresh air.

[ProudDad]

58. Sorry

I just watched the whole thing on BBC.

Levin sounded like the repuke...trying to pin Galloway down, using the same techniques that those wimpy damn dems and the pukes use to obscure the whole truth by burying it under minutia.

It was all I could do to keep from screaming at the monitor.

Coleman was utterly outclassed, outgunned and came off sounding like a wimpy asshole who didn't have a shred of evidence against Galloway. Levin came riding up to protect the "power and majesty" of the (Puke controlled) Senate. He shouldn't have done that!

[ProudDad]

60. Galloway gave COMPLETE answers

He didn't fall into the trap that the pukes and their lackies, the wimp dems (and all damn lawyers) make people fall into by forcing yes or no answers to complex questions.

Galloway was brilliant, articulate and responsive throughout the entire hearing.

[countryjake]

66. I think questioning his motives is precisely what's necessary!

Can you honestly say that this current investigation into the UN, the smearing of Kofi Annan, and any of the accusations that have been made about the Oil-for-Food program are not suspicious in their nature and timing?

The neo-cons have done everything in their power to condemn any and all parties who did not support the destruction of Iraq. Just as Galloway said today, their reasons were all a pack of lies, and now that the world is finally realizing what their motives really were...POOF, we are presented with the Mother of all Smokescreens!

This entire investigation into "money laundering" and "kickbacks" of the UN program is a farce, when we have Halliburton oozing throughout Iraq like the Blob, private contractors doing who-knows-what and answering to no one; the disaster we've created for the Iraqi people is where the true corruption needs to be investigated!

Galloway didn't just "stick it to some assholes"; he clearly pointed out that perpetrating those sanctions was suspect, that everything our government did leading up to the invasion was suspect, that American officials' behavior throughout this War is suspect, and that the entire "investigation" of the Oil-for-Food program is suspect!

I question the motives of anyone who directly promotes, excuses, and defends this CRIME we've committed in Iraq, especially if they are condemning those who don't support it!

[Pacifist Patriot]

73. No straight answer?

I'd re-read the transcript. There were two key paragraphs in which he emphatically denied involvement and several paragraphs in which he offered testimony that the 'evidence' against him could not possibly be true. Honestly, I don't see it get much straighter than what he dished out yesterday.

I've been following his career for about 8 years now. He's fascinating.

[leesa]

77. He was perfectly straight. You are used to that.

I didn't hear him mess with any answers.

[The Stranger]

78. Levin is a BAD Senator, and an EMBARASSMENT to the DC.

When someone finally shows up who will say out loud (and with flourish) that the Emperor Wears No Clothes, Levin is the one trying to insist these clothes are the most beautiful clothes in the world.

Levin's motives are at best questionable, and have been questionable for decades. If he were a true Democrat, he would be seeking to find out why we are engaged in one of the most morally depraved foreign policy actions in the history of this country, and one that will take generations to heal.

"Peace"? You really cannot be serious. Perhaps you should go spell that word out for Carl Levin.

[leftchick]

83. Exactly. levin should be hounding the WH about a certain memo

and now about some certain "minutes" of meetings in the UK in 2002. No, he has his head firmly up his ass, as most of the Democrats in the Senate.

[umtalal]

142. Love that picture.

I want it as an avatar.

[5thGenDemocrat]

137. That we are involved in something so despicable isn't Levin's fault

He voted AGAINST the Iraq War Resolution. Levin IS a true Democrat as most of us here in Michigan have known for a quarter-century.
Carl Levin voted for "peace." And, as we Michiganians are the only ones who can vote for him one way or another, I guess you're shit outta luck as to whether he remains a senator or not.
Choke on that.
John
Why don't you ask Hillary Clinton or Joe Lieberman or Joe Biden or the sainted John Kerry or cute, lightweight little John Edwards why we're over there? They're the ones who voted for the goddamned thing.
I'll happily vote for Levin if and when he chooses to run again. Like I said, choke on it.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

80. he waffled pretty good on the questions about his friend....

and whether he cared where the money came from (oil deals).

I think his other answers were pretty damn good tho!

[lastliberalintexas]

87. It's sad when eloquent, impassioned speech

is considered almost "too slick, like a lawyer." Have we Americans become so accustomed to listening to our own imbecilic politicians that we turn on those who can speak as articulately as Mr. Galloway *just because* he speaks articulately?

I was rather impressed with Mr. Galloway's speaking abilities. Indeed, I listened to him wistfully, rather than critically.

[Kilroy003]

102. I agree with you on that score...

Galloway obviously knew that is associate was dealing in Iraqi Oil. He couldn't come out and say it without ruining his earlier assertion that he has never profited from oil deals.

Aside from that, he's right about the illegality of the war.

Also, I found his take on the sanctions to be honest and compassionate.

Peace to you too...

[Frederik]

112. But HE didn't profit from it

the money went into his organization.

[anitar1]

108. If you searched Galloways back ground,

You might find that he is an honorable man. We have become so used to criminal behavior by our so called representatives through the years , that we don't recognize truth when we hear it. I would be suspicious of Lewin, not Galloway. Most of the Senators are not orators. They do not possess the language for a debate.Pitiful. All they can do is yell.

[chomskysright]

109. he's British and knows how to fucking speak in non-black white terms....

something that the inquisitors did not appreciate.

too fucking bad for them.

while the law may be black and white or tries to be, the issues supercede that and I think Galloway is to be thanked for trying to open up the Pandora's box whilst the Senate was trying to let out just a sliver of light that no one gives much of a fuck about.

[Frederik]

111. He didn't get straight questions

"You're not alleging that the documents are forgeries?", repeatedly from Levin. Galloway answered that he had no way of knowing, as he had only seen them that same day. I think his answers were a lot straighter than the questions.

[geek tragedy]

38. He's a disgrace because he's not a member of the wacko fringe?

Check out his voting record.

The idea that Levin is trying to give Bush political cover is completely irrational.

[oblivious]

47. I thought Levin's question 'Would it have made a difference if' was cheap.

It seemed to me he was after a headline, something that would allow them to say "GALLOWAY ADMITS HE HAS NO RESPECT FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW" if he said NO, or be able to call him a hypocrite for not making sure the charity money was returned if this is true.

It was so obvious to me. I thought Galloway would be crazy to answer the question. Thankfully he didn't.

[geek tragedy]

48. Well, he had Galloway over a barrel on that one.

Galloway really didn't care if the money coming to his 'charity' was dirty or not. Add to that the fact that he hid the books for his 'charity' offshore, and suspicion of Mr. Galloway isn't entirely unreasonable.

[oblivious]

51. It's sort of a junior high school debating trick to trap fools.

"President Bush/Senator Coleman, etc, would it have made a difference if you had known Saddam wasn't a danger to the US or its allies?"

YES? Well we now have proof that you did know. So you are a liar.

NO? Then you are a war criminal and mass murderer, having started a pre-emptive war on a lie.

[geek tragedy]

52. I wish someone in our press corps would ask the Shrub such a question.

It's perfectly valid.

[oblivious]

53. But the 'where the donations came from' question isn't black and white.

As Mr Galloway explained quite well. Didn't he say he took money from the leaders of Saudi Arabia and UAE? Some people would call that tainted money, but not the US Senate.

[geek tragedy]

55. The question is where the Jordanian fellow got his money.

This is how money laundering works--an informal arrangement with a party where there is plausible deniability.

[The Stranger]

79. No it is not.

The question is why this country is locked in one of the greatest foreign policy disasters in a century, and how it was manipulated and exploited into launching a war based on bright shining lies.

[rocktivity]

82. If the Senate wants the know where the Jordanian fellow got his money

They should ask the Jordanian fellow.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Henny Penny]

88. Galloway was there to defend his own reputation

and at the same time, get some truths out to the wider American public. He did pretty well on both counts.

The only thing the senators could get him on was his unwillingness to condemn the actions of a friend.

[geek tragedy]

89. Where are the books and records for Miriam's Appeal?

If everything was above board and honest, there should be no problem producing them.

[Henny Penny]

90. "Every penny in and every penny out!"

investigated by Lord Goldsmith.

[geek tragedy]

96. Oh really?

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/investigations/inquiryreports/mariam2.asp

<snip> 12. The Commission has been unable to obtain all the books and records of the Appeal. Mr Galloway, the first Chairman of the Appeal, has stated that this documentation was sent to Amman and Baghdad in 2001 when Fawaz Zuriekat became Chairman of the Appeal. Mr Galloway has informed the Commission that this documentation is no longer under the control of the original trustees of the Appeal and cannot be located by them. Mr Galloway confirmed that the Appeal did not produce annual profit and loss accounts or balance sheets.
<snip>

How very convenient!

[chalky]

120. And the action taken?

"However given that the founders of the Appeal were unaware that they had created a charity and because the Commission has found no evidence that the funds of the Appeal were misapplied (other than the payment of unauthorised benefits to trustees), the Commission will be taking no further action on this matter."

[Henny Penny]

94. and now I've had time to check further....

"Announcing the inquiry's findings on Monday, the Charity Commission's director of operations, Simon Gillespie, said: "The commission's thorough inquiry found no evidence to suggest that the large amounts of money given to the Mariam Appeal were not properly used."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3847287.stm

[geek tragedy]

97. Because Galloway HID THE EVIDENCE OFFSHORE

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/investigations/inquiryreports/mariam2.asp

<snip>
12. The Commission has been unable to obtain all the books and records of the Appeal. Mr Galloway, the first Chairman of the Appeal, has stated that this documentation was sent to Amman and Baghdad in 2001 when Fawaz Zuriekat became Chairman of the Appeal. Mr Galloway has informed the Commission that this documentation is no longer under the control of the original trustees of the Appeal and cannot be located by them. Mr Galloway confirmed that the Appeal did not produce annual profit and loss accounts or balance sheets.
<snip>

If Zureikat was dirty, there's a very, very good chance this 'charity' is dirty as well.

[Henny Penny]

98. strangely you quote just one paragraph of nine... !

Could it be that the others just don't support your case?? Lets see...

"8. The Commission concluded that the objects of the Appeal were charitable and that, given the level of income raised in the name of the Appeal, it should have been registered with the Commission and placed on the Register of Charities. The Constitution placed the control and management of the administration of the Appeal with the members of the Executive Committee of the Appeal, who in accordance with the provisions of the Act were the charity trustees.

9. The Commission concluded that those persons who founded the Appeal were unaware that they had created a charity. The founders had received legal advice, that the Commission considers to be in error, that the Constitution did not create a charity.

10. The Commission used powers under Section 8 and Section 9 of the Act to obtain details of the opening of the Appeal’s bank accounts, the signatories on the various mandates and the receipt and payment of funds.

11. Apart from public donations it was established that the major funders of the Appeal were the United Arab Emirates, a donor from Saudi Arabia and a Jordanian Businessman Fawaz Zuriekat."
end quote....

you've already quoted number 12. And left out...

"3. The Commission received assurances from Mr Galloway that the monies received by him from the Appeal related to expenses incurred in his duties as Chairman of the Appeal.

14. The Commission established that Dr Amineh Abu-Zayyad and Stuart Halford, two of the original trustees, received unauthorised benefits in the form of salary payments from the Appeal’s funds. The information provided to the Commission suggests that the Executive Committee considered these payments were necessary and were unaware that they were unauthorised. The Commission accepts that none of the Executive Committee acted in bad faith and that the services provided were of value to the Appeal.

15. Some of the activities of the Appeal were political by nature, in particular a campaign to end the sanctions against Iraq. The information provided is consistent with the view that these activities were ancillary in terms of expenditure to the purposes of the Mariam Appeal. The trustees could reasonably have formed the view that this would have the impact of enabling treatment for sick children.

16. The Commission is satisfied that Mariam’s treatment and aftercare were funded by the Appeal in furtherance of its purposes. "

I hope you noticed the bit about "enabling the treatment of sick children!"

[geek tragedy]

101. It's pretty simple--if you HIDE all of the incriminating evidence,

the only stuff that remains is exculpatory.

[Frederik]

114. So there's no evidence

which to you is a sign that they must have hidden it somewhere!

So he's guilty a priori, in other words, because Coleman and Levin say so.

[geek tragedy]

118. There was evidence, which conveniently happened to find its way

out of the country and away from the prying eyes of the authorities.

Now, one can be a Pollyanna and assume that the books for this pseudo-charity finding their way out of the country was completely innocent.

However, this kind of stuff is usually a sign that someone has something to hide.

[chalky]

121. Linky-dink, please.

Pretty please.

[geek tragedy]

122. Here's a link to a post of mine (I've posted this info several times

already)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1480694&mesg_id=1481923

[bpilgrim]

123. WTF does that mean?!? he was running a charity to raise money for IRAQIS!

The Mariam Appeal ("the Appeal") was established in 1998. The objects of the Appeal as stated in its Constitution were: "to provide medicines, medical equipment and medical assistance to the people of Iraq; to highlight the causes and results of the cancer epidemic in Iraq and to arrange for the medical treatment of a number of Iraqi children outside Iraq".

he was FIGHTING to save fucking lives and you got the NERVE to spread FUD over that with 0 evidence or knowledge WHATSOEVER :puke:

you are a disgrace for carrying water for the neoCON and calling DU'ers FREEPERS.

thanks for outing yourself in the process though :toast:

peace

[chalky]

126. Ummm...that's a little circular

Your linking to a post you've made upstream wasn't what I had in mind. Especially since posts after that have gone further into that report and have posted further excerpts from that same report to show that no action was taken because there was no evidence of wrongdoing.

I was hoping for something to corroborate your assertions that the evidence was taken off-shore. Sorry I wasn't clear.

[geek tragedy]

129. Um, the report says in plain English that the evidence, i.e. the Appeal's

books and records, were taken to the Mideast and are now unavailable.

The Mariam Appeal's books and records are the most important evidence with regard to its finances, and they just happen to have been gone missing offshore. Hmmmmmmm.

[chalky]

131. Dude, give me something, ANYTHING

else besides your somewhat paranoid interpretation of the meaning of this one paragraph. Unfortunately, the NINE SUBSEQUENT sections in this report that show NONE of the menace you seem to glean from that one section puts you in the sad position of having to defend your assertion. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.
If you want me to buy that the Charity Commission is so lazy, or so in love with Galloway that they'd end their report with the words "...the Commission has found no evidence that the funds of the Appeal were misapplied" and "the Commission will be taking no further action on this matter", all the while knowing or even suspecting that there was possible hanky-panky that they wanted to but couldn't account for, you're going to have to give me more solid evidence and some more acceptable sources than your gut.

A news article referring to continued investigations or that includes a quote from an involved official would be nice.

For example, to back up MY arguments, I can have you refer back to this quote from the Charity Commissions director of operations found in an article from the Guardian dated June 29, 2004:
"The commission's thorough inquiry found no evidence to suggest that the large amounts of money given to the Mariam Appeal were not properly used."
(Oh, and by the way, notice how he didn't parse his phrasing. He didn't coyly say that "there was no evidence that most of the money wasn't properly used" or "what evidence we were able to obtain suggests that the money was properly used." So if you want to call this man a liar...well, I'm just sayin'.)

And before you ask...NO, a link to a right-wing op-ed piece or blogger's site that doesn't have links to a newspaper article does. not. count. It shouldn't be too hard--there are plenty of people gunning for Galloway for this oh-so-obvious sin, right?

[geek tragedy]

132. To what degree that Commission could speculate is not known by either of

us. My opinion, knowing UK libel law and the fact that Galloway is one hell of a fighter (I will concede that point. I dislike him, but Brits do elect scrappers to their legislature) that they weren't willing to to any real speculating.

Here's the Charity Commission's response to his testimony:

http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/detail.asp?ReleaseID=156759&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=True

<snip>
Although we have not yet seen a transcript of Mr Galloway's evidence to the US Senate Sub-Committee today, we understand that his comments included the following:

1) The Mariam Appeal, founded by Mr Galloway, was subject to a Charity Commission investigation in which all money in and all money out of the Mariam account was looked at and no impropriety was found.

2) The Charity Commission investigation into the Mariam Appeal found no donation from any oil company.

The Charity Commission would like to restate a number of points of fact regarding its inquiry.

The Mariam Appeal was established in 1998. The Charity Commission opened an investigation into the Appeal in 2003, after we received a complaint that was presented to the Attorney General in response to a newspaper article.
By 2003, the Appeal had been closed and the books and records had been sent to Jordan in 2001 where the then Chairman of the Appeal, Mr Fawaz Zuriekat resided; the Commission was therefore unable to review them. Our inquiry therefore had to rely on details we were able to obtain from the Appeal's bank accounts.

The Appeal did not produce annual income and expenditure accounts or balance sheets.

While we were able to review income and expenditure from the bank statements of the Appeal, which we had to obtain using our legal powers direct from banks, we were not able to verify all aspects of expenditure because of the lack of proper documentation. However, we found no evidence that the funds of the Appeal were misapplied (other than the payment of some unauthorised benefits to trustees which were made in good faith).

We did not undertake a detailed review of sources of income to the Appeal because the original concern prompting our inquiry was about the use to which funds had been put. Our inquiry did not find evidence of donations direct from oil companies but noted that one of the major funders of the Appeal was Fawaz Zuriekat, an individual named on 12 May 2005 by the US Senate Sub-Committee as allegedly connected with payments in relation to allocations of oil under the Iraq Oil for Food Programme. We have no evidence to show that the income received by the Fund from Mr Zuriekat came from an improper source. But had the recent allegations been known to us at the time of our inquiry, we would have made the information available to the appropriate UK authorities for them to decide whether the Mariam Appeal had received funds from an illegal source.
<snip>

In other words, when Galloway said "every penny in and every penny out," he L-I-E-D.

That's right. He lied.

[chalky]

134. Guess I'll take a page from your book and

give you an interpretation of what you just posted, although I'm sure you'll dismiss it as such.

"While we were able to review income and expenditure from the bank statements of the Appeal, which we had to obtain using our legal powers direct from banks, we were not able to verify all aspects of expenditure because of the lack of proper documentation. However, we found no evidence that the funds of the Appeal were misapplied (other than the payment of some unauthorised benefits to trustees which were made in good faith)."

The Commission used their "legal powers" to get the income and expeditures from the banks. Are you saying the banks held back some of the information? Oh yeah, you're saying the banks didn't have all the money. But the paragraph does not say "We were not able to verify all amounts of expenditures", does it? Somehow, I doubt they're in the game to protect Galloway and would have clearly stated issues about income amounts if there had been any(certainly Lord Goldsmith wouldn't protect the man). After all, it would be their butts on the line if it came out that funds or anything else beyond the pale were hidden, right?

"We did not undertake a detailed review of sources of income to the Appeal because the original concern prompting our inquiry was about the use to which funds had been put. Our inquiry did not find evidence of donations direct from oil companies but noted that one of the major funders of the Appeal was Fawaz Zuriekat, an individual named on 12 May 2005 by the US Senate Sub-Committee as allegedly connected with payments in relation to allocations of oil under the Iraq Oil for Food Programme. We have no evidence to show that the income received by the Fund from Mr Zuriekat came from an improper source. But had the recent allegations been known to us at the time of our inquiry, we would have made the information available to the appropriate UK authorities for them to decide whether the Mariam Appeal had received funds from an illegal source."

"...The original concern prompting our inquiry was about the use to which funds had been put," and that prompted the bank audit, which I've already covered. And yet here again, no mention of missing funds. Not even a hint.

"...But had the recent allegations been known to us at the time of our inquiry, we would have made the information available to the appropriate UK authorities for them to decide whether the Mariam Appeal had received funds from an illegal source."

So they would have gone to the UK authorities over the possibility that the known funds came from the illegal sale of oil, but they wouldn't have said a word about a discrepancy in funds or anything else?

So again, I ask you for a link. that shows. that funds. are missing.
or a reasonable argument that anything is out of whack. From just one paper. One official site.

Please?

[geek tragedy]

135. You need to read the statement more carefully

You said:
<snip>
But the paragraph does not say "We were not able to verify all amounts of expenditures", does it?
<snip>

The Commission statement says, and I quote:

<snip>
we were not able to verify all aspects of expenditure because of the lack of proper documentation.
<snip>

[chalky]

136. Oh, for God's sake....

Fine. I'm tired, so you win. You're Cassandra and we're not listening.
The British press, Lord Goldsmith and the entire UK government is protecting Galloway. Hell, Rove is probably in his corner, too.

It's obvious. That's why you keep coming back with NO QUOTES, NO LINKS, and no other evidence than your own interpretation of these documents.

Now go out and tell Carl Levin and Norm Coleman what you've found. I'm sure they'll find it very helpful.

[Zhade]

141. You have misrepresented chalky's words.

You said:
<snip>
But the paragraph does not say "We were not able to verify all amounts of expenditures", does it?

versus

<snip>
we were not able to verify all aspects of expenditure because of the lack of proper documentation.
<snip>

Chalky speaks of amounts, you distort it into aspects. These are two different things.

Your post is dishonest and misleading.

[rocktivity]

81. I totally agree--the question was a cheap shot

Especially since the purpose of the hearing was supposed to be about what ACTUALLY happened. Galloway should have said that the FACT is that he DIDN'T know about the money--why waste time specualating?

:headbang:
rocknation

[ProudDad]

61. ABSOLUTELY

It was a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question!

Levin should have known better. I guess he's not used to candor either.

[Frederik]

113. Yes, Levin was an ass on that one.

[stickdog]

99. Galloway = Truth. Levin = Power

Levin was a disgrace yesterday, just like he was at General Myers' confirmation hearing on 9/13/01.

[staticstopper]

130. Levin is either irrational or a dupe

:knowing he had just witnessed - in person - one of the greatest ANTIWAR speeches, yet then goes onto piss on the flames...now that is what I call disgusting! He could have asked one or two short questions and left it at that, but no, he had to try to ruin it.

Is the guy antiwar or anti-shrub at all? Or is he one of the sheeps in wolfs clothing? And there are alot, by proof of the lack of an "ANTIWAR LEADER" in the Senate. (like Wellstone could have been, but he probly didn't have some freaky photos floating around to keep him in check)

Where is the opposition?
:mad:

[Nickster]

4. Did they watch the same hearing that I did???

[joeybee12]

5. Yup, as usual, the Senate had made up its mind prior--committees are

just for show. So fuck them and fuck Carl Levin. They'll just act skeptical, and nothing will ever come of this--Coleman has his issue to rile up the brain dead fuckers when he runs for re-election--and the Dems have decided they just won't bother supporting the truth.

[Erika]

6. Iraq is getting so ugly and corrupt.

This war was one that never needed to be fought. It's hard to turn a situation that started with lies and deceit into something positive.

How many days until Bush is out of office and we can start being true to our ideals again?

[chlamor]

7. Supine Collaborators

in a criminal adventure-THE United States Senate.

Every Single Senator is complicit in this WAR-Every one of them.

Name one that voted down the Funding of this genocide. Name one.

[gumby]

17. "Genocide" is indeed the correct term.

Against the Iraqis, "our" troops, and against the world.

The Depleted Uranium we have unleashed will have untold devastation far beyond the borders of Iraq.

[lilymercury]

144. gumby dammit,

I wish you were not right.

But you are. The US has nuked the entire world over the last 14 years through Iraq. The damage can never be undone. 4.5 billion years.

When women have to ask "Is it normal?", before "Is it a boy or girl?" it is a sad day for the world.

[ProudDad]

62. They voted 100-0

for the last $82B

[lilymercury]

143. I couldn't agree with you more chlamor.

US Senate - GUILTY!!

The US government has surpassed it's shame in Japan.

What a world it has become.

[Tinoire]

145. Clap, clap, applause, applause!

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[bemildred]

8. I don't think he was trying to "convince" them.

I doubt that he gives a rats ass what they think.

[leesa]

24. He knows he was right and he knows they are complicit.

There is some brick-shitting going on tonight.

[chomskysright]

110. KICK IT!!

[KoKo]

10. Scotsman Newspaper was bought out by Murdoch or some other RWINGER

They were very Anti-War before the Iraq Invasion and shortly after but then the original owner decided to sell the paper to a "consortium." If it's not Murdoch it's one of his wannabee's. I don't have the energy to search Google for the article...but take my word for it. Sadly the "Scotsman" has gone the way of CNN. :-(

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. The Barclay brothers have owned the Scotsman since 1995

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3407799.stm

[chalky]

124. Interesting info on The Scotsman and its publisher:

Found this little piece of information on--of all places--absolute astronomy.com
"Controversial British journalist Andrew Neil is publisher of {The Scotsman} and is often criticized for the lack of time spent in Scotland."

And for some reason that's lost in translation for me, the Scotsman is derisively nicknamed, "The Hootsman" 'round those parts. If anyone can explain this to me, please do.


It didn't take much more Googling on Andrew Neil to find out his political leanings. This website stated that he was a "staunch supporter of the Thatcher conservative government."

My favorite description of him was from a website called firstfoot.com: "This pock marked, potato headed, Thatcher loving, ex-Murdoch acolyte is a media failure. At least in terms of the scope of his own ambition. At one time, during the height of Thatcherism, when the power of the Murdoch press ran rampant and licked the backside of Maggie, this turnip-heid edited The Sunday Times.
"When the numpty took the helm at The Sunday Times it was a highly respected journal. By the time he left, it consisted of 10,000 pages and 84 sections and required a small fork lift truck and an even smaller brain to take it home. It was biased, sensationalised and inaccurate. Needless to say it was increasingly right wing."

And judging by this 3/25/05 item from the Press Gazette Website , it doesn't look like he's good at "playing pretty", as my grandma called it:

"Scotland's new pro-independent national weekly, the Scottish Standard, is hopping mad with The Scotsman.
"In its comment column in its second issue, the Standard reports: 'While colleagues on most papers were generally supportive of the Scottish Standard's launch - mixing praise and good wishes with constructive criticism - the arch-Unionist Scotsman had nothing better to do with two pages than to unleash a vitriolic assault on the quality of our journalism. Being lectured on bad journalism by Andrew Neil's Hootsman is in many ways a tribute. They are, after all, experts on the subject.'"

edited to change absoluteastronomy.com link to wikipedia, since that's where they got the info from anyway.

edited AGAIN, dammit--since I can't get that Press Gazette link to work right, try: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/?t=article&l=dog_watches_dog_250305 about the middle of the page.

[MaryBear]

11. The article cited does not support its claim

that Galloway "blustered" and failed.

[Jacobin]

12. These guys are in some alternate universe

That is all that I can say.

[GoldenOldie]

14. "B luster," is what Delay, Frist, Bush, Cheney, etc., do.

Galloway Blasted them with facts and they didn't know how to handle it.

[Trajan]

13. Who owns the Scotsman ? ..

What is their political bent ? ... their editorial philsophy ? ..

Seems to be somewhat, slightly, sycophantish ....

Richard Perle couldnt write a more direct and focused hit piece if the target was the UN ....

[chalky]

128. See post #124 above for some insight. Hint: It ain't a liberal paper.

eom.

[oblivious]

15. Most of the headlines are much more favourable to Galloway (Google)

http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us&ncl=http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm%3Fpk%3DOIL4FOOD-05-17-05%26cat%3DAN

[leQ]

33. that usually happens in the afternoon - maybe its a west coast thing

.

[oblivious]

125. The headlines are looking even better after it's been digested.

Galloway lashing spoils America party
Washington, May 18: It was as if the Boston Tea Party had been reversed all over after 232 years!

Hours after it happened yesterday, BBC newsreaders could not hide their smirk of satisfaction. In the Senate office buildings here, Americans gasped in disbelief that this was happening.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050519/asp/foreign/story_4759064.asp

Reuters: British MP Galloway says 'blew away' U.S. committee
"We blew them away," an emotional Galloway told a rally in London after giving evidence to the panel examining how former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein used oil to reward politicians.

"From the emails and feedback we've had from all over the world it is true undoubtedly that there was a worldwide audience out there waiting for someone to speak the truth to power," he added.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=8535673
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20050518-1906-britain-galloway.html
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15337549%255E1702,00.html
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,15337549%255E1702,00.html
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_world_story_skin/558963%3fformat=html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=769740

Galloway turns tables on Washington
US, British press describe how Britain’s 'Street fighter' humiliated his accusers on Iraq.

"It wasn't supposed to be like this. Even when Daniel was in the lion's den, he didn't humiliate and torment the lion," said Britain's mass-circulation Daily Mirror, which opposed the March 2003 US-led war that overthrew Saddam.

"But that's what George Galloway did in Washington to the senator who accused him of making millions from Saddam oil," it said.

"Galloway not only defended himself robustly but also threw the charges back in the face of the American administration," it added.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=13538

BRIT FRIES SENATORS IN OIL
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/46783.htm

Galloway turns the tables on U.S. Senators
http://www.hindu.com/2005/05/19/stories/2005051900341500.htm

Turning the tables, British politician raps Senate inquiry as 'preposterous'
WASHINGTON - Fiery British politician George Galloway belittled as "utterly preposterous" a Senate panel's allegations that he secretly profited from Iraq's oil-for-food program.

Brashly turning the tables on the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Galloway challenged the fairness of a panel that he said would smear his name "without ever having asked me a single question."
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/energy/3187140

US law meets its match in British MP
A British MP came to Washington and turned the tables on his accusers in a US Senate committee by launching a tirade against the Iraq war and denying that he ever traded in Iraqi oil.

Mr George Galloway, the honourable member of British Parliament and the arch enemy of Mr Tony Blair, turned out to be a formidable witness.
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/may192005/foreign193522005518.asp

Galloway hits back on US 'lies'
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1706725,00.html

Galloway assault on Capitol Hill
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/18/wgall18.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/18/ixnewstop.html

Galloway and the mother of all invective
Whatever else you made of him, when it came to delivering sustained barrages of political invective, you had to salute his indefatigability.

George Galloway stormed up to Capitol Hill yesterday morning for the confrontation of his career, firing scatter-shot insults at the senators who had accused him of profiting illegally from Iraqi oil sales.

They were "neo-cons" and "Zionists" and a "pro-war lynch mob", he raged, who belonged to a "lickspittle Republican committee" that was engaged in creating "the mother of all smokescreens".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1486417,00.html

Briton puts senators on defensive on Iraq
The panel's chairman, Senator Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota, seemed taken aback by the intensity of Galloway's remarks, stumbling over some questions or demanding yes or no answers that the British lawmaker then refused to give
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/18/news/probe.php

Edit: More British right-wing papers

Standing ovation for Galloway
Respect MP George Galloway received a rapturous welcome at a packed rally a day after a ferocious showdown with US senators.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/PA_NEWA1176831116442640A0?source=PA%20Feed#
http://iccroydon.icnetwork.co.uk/news/national/tm_objectid=15532548&method=full&siteid=50102&headline=standing-ovation-for-galloway-name_page.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/18/ugallo.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/05/18/ixportaltop.html
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4573774

[jwirr]

16. Who is on this committe besides

normie and Levin? Can't we find out who owns the Scotsman? I think we should get to the members if the committee and show them EXACTLY how much we believe Galloway. I don't know if this rag is worth our time.

[bleedingheart]

18. Proof that we should vote all the morons out of office.

[5thGenDemocrat]

140. One more time -- Levin voted AGAINST the IWR

And, since you live in Pennsylvania and are represented by such giants as Sanctimonium and Sphincter (who both DID vote for it), you simply don't get a say in whether Levin remains in the Senate.
However, I live in Michigan and so I get to vote for Levin as my senator and no voter in any of the other 49 states has any say in the matter whatsoever.
Further, (hahaha) Levin routinely wins by 60-40 margins here. I hope he runs again just so I can vote for him one more time. It'll make me very happy and piss a whole bunch of you holier-than-thou's right off. Sorry Levin didn't kiss Galloway's ass -- but, regarding his senatorial career, you simply don't get a say in who represents the state of Michigan. And I do.
Ain't Democracy grand?
John
Laughing up my sleeve at you all.

[0007]

19. George Galloway was so precise in carving up the Senate

flawlessly against the false charges on him that there was no doubt in my mind of Galloway's creditability.

Anything less is sour grapes.

[daleo]

20. He doesn't have to clear his name

They have to prove he did something wrong. I think the presumption of innocence (or you can't prove a negative) is once more being abused. Typical reaction of the status quo, but it gets more transparent every time. Even the fools will be catching on.

[riverwalker]

21. Galloway ripped them all a new one

or as Malloy would probably say, there are bright red asses all over Washington tonight. It wasn't just that he called them out, he did it with class, courage, dignity, facts, truth and integrity.
I am not kidding, when I heard Galloway today, I felt just like I did when I heard MLK's famous speech. We are witnessing history.

[WillyT]

22. Remember 'Profiles In Corage' ??? Apparently We Have To Import Them Now !!

What a deadly... crying... shame...!!!

'None dare call it treason...eh?'

Pretty Soon Mother Fuckers... pretty soon!!!

[donkeyotay]

92. US is so bankrupt, we even have to import the truth

I have never felt so ashamed of those ass-lickers in Washington. They no longer even pretend to work for the American people.

[Generator]

117. Great line!!! OH so true and nicely succinct

:toast:

[Trajan]

23. Scotsman's Bluster Fails to Convince World ....

nt

[ninkasi]

49. I think the writer of the headline

has a poor understanding of the meaning of bluster. I detected no bluster, only eloquence and a refusal to accept blame where none was due.

As far as whether the world was convinced or not, I believe the writer is confusing the USA for the whole world. The Senate, with a few exceptions, has lost the capacity for honest debate, or honest anything, to tell you the truth.

[Darranar]

26. So what? He accomplished his goals and made his point. n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

41. Is the "Senate" two guys now?

And the author of that meritless editorial is kind of projecting just a little, huh?

[AP]

42. Whose bluster failed to convince whom? If that headline isn't a table-

turner, then I don't know what is.

[antonialee839]

44. I don't give a flying %$@ what they think!

I'm convinced and that's all that matters. I am so freaking tired of these people.

[LynnTheDem]

45. The Scotsman is RIGHTWING, people.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,582103,00.html

http://www.alba.org.uk/links/newspapers.html

Editor Andrew Neil is a MURDOCH man;

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~abr/Feb04/McKnight.htm

That tells ya all you need to know about the Scotsman, non?

[robbo2356]

59. Right Wing Papers

Murdoch owns several papers over in U.K. such as national papers
`The Sun` and the `News of the World` which is a Sunday Paper .
You have to be careful what you read nowadays .

[anarchy1999]

54. LEVIN???? You've got to be kidding me!

Just shoot me.

N/t

Sorry, I've yet to catch the whole hearing.

Can Granny D just organize a broom brigade, I'd sure as hell join in. Or should we maybe consider organizing a broom and mop brigade and just have Granny D stand front and center in the end as we CLEAN THE HOUSE, THE SENATE, AND THE COURT of the corruption that runs rampant through the corridors of "OUR" government. PLEASE REMEMBER IT IS OUR HOUSE, IT IS OUR GOVERNMENT, WE OWN IT, IT IS

WE THE PEOPLE!

[ProudDad]

63. Galloway's doing the same thing

to that ass-wipe Charlie Rose right now.

It's fun to watch. Rose keeps trying to "Levin" him and he's losing too.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[pacifictiger]

65. Maybe someone needs

to advise the senators that in Dec 2004, Galloway won his libel suit.
-----------------------
Former Labour MP George Galloway has won his libel action against the Daily Telegraph and been awarded £150,000 in damages.
High Court judge David Eady said the allegations that he was in the pay of Saddam Hussein were "seriously defamatory" and said he had no option but to award the Scottish MP, who was one of the most outspoken critics of the war compensation of the upper end of the scale awarded in a non-jury libel action.

The high court ruled that Telegraph had defamed Mr Galloway when it published a report claiming documents found in Baghdad during the Iraq war last year alleged he was in the pay of Saddam Hussein.
--------------------------

[tsuki]

67. The Republicans can always count on some Democrat to

to carry the burning cross in their efforts to "lynch" democracy.

[LightningFlash]

70. That's exactly it. It appears this is a run-around game.

Clearly, Galloway has nailed the bukes to the wall--Coleman and Levin, for being equally complicit in letting this scam go on for years.

You don't think there are corrupt players on both sides? I would seriously advise thinking again.

I would say at this stage, that Galloway should be willing to bring forth all the evidence of his conduct before the Senate's court. If Galloway and his firm were truly guilty, they would want it to be proven right? So why not offer the opportunity?

Let Galloway take all the evidence before the court, that's what I say should be the anogalous next step.

[tsuki]

104. I'd just settle for a look-see at the check Rupie had to write

him when Galloway won the libel suit in England.

[Stockholm]

68. This is the first barrage of the RW smear campaign

Must say there are some very interesting points made in this thread...

This hearing was never about justice or truth, it was all about smearing the UN by the neo-cons. In what perverted universe is a man forced to prove his innocence?

IMHO the senators failed in providing any substantial material or they would have leaked and plastered them all over the news. You simply can´t trust quotes by "fmr high ranking Iraqi officials", demonstrated liars as Chalabi or worse tortured confessions from Abu Ghraib inmates. Yet, that´s their whole case.

As Bemildred says it´s all about managing your perceptions - don´t buy into it.

In fact this article and coming RW articles should be removed. Otherwise DU end up spending the whole day arguing about spin issues.

[Massachusetts]

"Galloway bluster fails to convince Senate"

Oh...then prove IT!

[Vinca]

71. The truth hurts. nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

74. That was my reaction.

Must really cut to hear someone say to your face what you know to be true but have been trying to hide for years.

[Pacifist Patriot]

72. LOL! "sceptical investigative committee?"

Entirely wrong modifier. A witch hunt is never sceptical.

[LightningFlash]

75. I'm a little more skeptical of the investigators....

[Pacifist Patriot]

76. Isn't that the truth?

I am so delighted they misunderestimated him. ;)

[rocktivity]

84. Here's a link to the entire 45 minutes of testimony

They retort, you decide.

:headbang:
rocknation

[MikeDuffy]

85. Link does not seem to go to video??? n/t

[rocktivity]

86. Scotsman Bluster Fails To Convice Rocknation

:headbang:
rocknation

[chlamor]

93. Of course they weren't convinced 98 out of 100 didn't show up.

They didn't want to face the truth and their own conscience. They knew what was coming. Cowards, all of them.

[demo dutch]

95. Isn't great though, Galloway was given lemons and made lemonade!

he said exactly what I have been wanting to scream in their faces for a year!!

It will make him a hero with the anti-war movement everywhere especially in UK where he wasn't that popular!

[demo dutch]

100. I should all thank Galloway at ------------------ [e-mail]

for his truth about Iraq!

[anitar1]

106. Why would Galloway's speech "convince" the crooks?

I am sure some of them are scared sh****ss of exposure of their crimes. This whole thing is ludricous.

[Generator]

115. The funny thing about Galloway

IS that most of what he said yesterday, the REST of the bloody world knows and believes. Only those in the Senate-are shocked-shocked-by someone that dares speak the truth. That isn't how things are done on the hill.

Andbody that actually reads a newspaper overseas knows more than the Americans that get their news from American media. Only the Americans would be shocked to hear the truth.

I will never forget Kristen Brietweiser-Jersey gal-on NOW on PBS last year-and her list of direct questions-still unanswered to this day-about HOW and WHY her husband died.

She was advised aksing those kind of direct questions isn't "how it's done on the hill."

We need a...figure out that Beatles song.

[wildwww2]

119. Hell the Senate was convinced of WMD`s that we at DU knew did not

exist. The only threat we had to really worry about was the maggot squatting in Al Gores White House. The Senate only knows how to look stupid and become more fascist by the day.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[LeahD]

138. Of all the descriptive nouns used to refer to * , this one does it.

No more chimp, no more blivet. He IS the maggot...wiggling, squirming bottom feeder of life.

[Merlin]

133. Nevis Scotsman Fails to Convince Thinking Human Beings.

This slimy attack piece isn't worth the price of the paper it's not printed on.