When was Galloway "asked" to appear before Senate?

[ok_cpu]

And would the attempted slander of an anti-war MP have had any effect on the British elections?

This may be elementary but I do not understand much about the British system...

[rurallib]

1. IIRC he wasn't asked, but he demanded to appear

about a week ago when his name was being bandied about by Norm 'the tooth fairy' Coleman.
Did ya hear Coleman trying to put a spin on it last night 'If he's lying there will be consequences'. Prove the lies, tooth fairy.

[Al-CIAda]

2. No, indeed he was 'requested to appear' before the committee.

I would be guessing, but I think it was a week or so ago.

[parasim]

8. Actually, I believe he said in an interview with Blitzer

that he himself asked to come over here and speak to the senate.

He also said that he came as the "accuser", not the "accused", a number of times.

[rodeodance]

4. yes, Coleman repeatedly said that Galloways credibility was

not good if he is lying. He was on Dobbs and later on Hardball.

[Toby109]

6. "If he's lying there will be consequences"

Hah! What fucking power does a US Senator have over a British Parliament member. Idiot.

[whistle]

3. He was being openly smeared, so he came and stood up....

...for himself. Now, did he say anything that will get him sanctioned in any way? By either the World Court or the U.S. legal system?

[rurallib]

5. He'll probably be like Rumsfeld who can't go into Germany

Galloway won't be able to come to US for contempt of congress or get arrested. Of course, that is after the tooth fairy proves he was lying.
Isn't Galloway on the same list as Pope John Paul II when it comes to oil-for-food?

[LynnTheDem]

7. Some stuff the US media isn't bothering much with...

1. While the US Senate insists their evidence against Galloway is "different" than the forgeries the Telegraph and the Christian Science Monitor used, that's in fact not true.

2. The "middleman" the US Senate claims paid oil money to Galloway has in fact never even been questioned -not even a postcard- by the US Senate. How...unusual.

3. The "middleman" the US Senate claims paid oil money to Galloway is in fact dealing Iraqi oil...with AMERICA, with bush administration knowledge and permission.

4. Even the US Senate has admitted they have no proof whatsoever that Galloway ever received a single penny from Iraq oil money, no proof whatsoever that he ever received a single penny from the "middleman", and no proof whatsoever that his charity ever received a single penny from Iraq oil money.

5. The US Senate claims Galloway was a "Saddam supporter". That, in fact, is VERY untrue and is easily proved to be total bullshit by Gallowy's past interviews and articles. Too bad the US Senate, like bush, doesn't bother doing any reading.

6. The US Senate claims Galloway "met with Saddam Hussein several times". That, in fact, is untrue. He met twice. And as Galloway points out, the same number of times Rummy met with Hussein.

7. The US Senate and pro-bushlers claim Galloway wanted to end the US sanctions against Iraq, thus that makes him "pro-Hussein Regime".

Yes, Galloway, AS WELL AS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORLD INCLUDING THE US SENATE did indeed try to get US sanctions against Iraq lifted. That certainly doesn't make Galloway, the vast majority of the world, nor the US Senate "pro-Hussein".

8. The US profited by some 52% on illicit Iraqi oil deals, including Dick Cheney's company Halliburton, when Cheney was still the acting president of Halliburton, and the USA was in charge of overseeing all ins and outs of the OFF program. The fact of this was just released in a US government report...under bush's own administration.

#8 is why the current US Senate bullshit over Galloway.