George Galloway 1 - 0 Senate [BBC news link]

Mr Writer · May 18, 2005

Remove all ads!
Video Link [BBC]

The First 4 minutes are boring, going through the key evidence and so on, normal stuff, but by 10 minutes he's destroyed them, by the 45 minutes only one question slightly troubled him.

BBC
Explosive showdown in Senate
By Matthew Davis
BBC News, Washington

George Galloway had vowed to give US senators "both barrels" and after sitting - coiled - through an hour-and-half of testimony against him, he unloaded all his ammunition.

Far from displaying the forelock-tugging deference to which senators are accustomed, Mr Galloway went on the attack.

He rubbished committee chairman Norm Coleman's dossier of evidence and stared him in the eye.

"Now I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer, you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice," the MP declared.

The whole room scanned Mr Coleman's face for a reaction. The senator shifted in his seat - nervously it seemed.

It was the first time a British politician had been interrogated as a hostile witness at the US Senate - but Mr Galloway cast himself not as the accused, but the accuser.

On stage at the heart of American power, he attacked the US-led war on Iraq and accused Washington of installing a "puppet" regime there.

'Lions' den'

The Scotsman launched into his opening statement with relish.

This was not a wrestling match - it wasn't a contest
Senator Norm Coleman

He had never received any money or any allocations of oil from Iraq. He was not, as the committee alleged, a supporter of Saddam Hussein.

"I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do, and than any member of the British or American governments do," he told the committee.

Mr Galloway had expected to testify before a panel of 13 senators in what he termed their "lions' den".

But he faced off against just two, Mr Coleman and Democratic counterpart Carl Levin.

It was Republican Mr Coleman who bore the brunt of the attack in one of the Senate's most flamboyant confrontations.

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong," he told the chairman, whom he labelled a "neo-con, pro-war hawk".

Mr Coleman tried desperately to take it without emotion, but at one point could not resist breaking in to a smile.

'He's no lyncher'

In the face of Mr Galloway's refusal to accept anything the senators were claiming might be true, they tried to establish a link between a Jordanian businessman who they believe received oil allocations from Saddam Hussein, and Mr Galloway's children's charity.

Mr Galloway said the businessman had given money to the charity but he, Mr Galloway, had never known where it came from.

The senators believe that it came from Iraq, but they could come up with no proof and their questions ended.

Senator Levin later said he was "deeply troubled" that Mr Galloway had "ducked the question".

But it was Mr Galloway who looked most satisfied as he left the vast, wood-panelled committee room.

Outside in a corridor he told reporters he thought he had put the committee on the ropes, saying of Mr Coleman: "He's not much of a lyncher."

The senators, however, were playing down the confrontation.

'A knockout'

"This was not a wrestling match," Mr Coleman protested. "It wasn't a contest."

Asked his reaction to the "unusual" manner of the witness, he replied: "I was not offended by what he had to say, it was not relevant.

"The theatre, the dramatics - I was not looking at that. I had one goal and it was to make a record."

The pundits disagreed. One observer of Capitol Hill politics declared the result: "Galloway by a knockout - before round five."

Others cast the confrontation as Braveheart on Capitol Hill.

But though he left the building professing himself satisfied with his trip to Washington, only time will tell whether Mr Galloway has blown away the allegations he described as the "mother of all smokescreens".

Mr Coleman said he didn't think Mr Galloway had been a "credible witness". If it was found he had lied under oath, there would be "consequences", he said.
Click to expand...

Taluntain · May 18, 2005

Just goes to show that the bullshit that the Bush administration has been and still is blinding the American people with can only really work and be supported as long as it stays on the lips of American politicians and fanatic supporters of the Bush administration, without anyone being given a chance to refute it. Galloway has now shown how easily it can be exposed for the pack of lies and the smoke-screen that it truly is.

I'm only sorry that after this scatching defeat of the attempt at lynching Galloway, the American public probably won't be given a chance to witness anything as humiliating to the senate or the Bush administration again. If hearings such as this one were routinely held before the senate, it'd be much harder to fool the majority of Americans into blindly accepting the propaganda that the Bush administration and its devoted supporters are feeding them.

[ May 18, 2005, 17:27: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

Nakia · May 18, 2005

Sadly I have to agree with you, Tal. It can take a long time for information to get out to us. We may have a free press but sometimes I wonder where their priorities are.

Chandos the Red · May 18, 2005

Galloway was quite remarkable in this exchange. It's good to see someone stand up to these "people." There is so much misinformation in this country right now (what Tal has termed BS) that hardly anyone can tell fact from fiction any longer. These are foul times.

Aldeth the Foppish Idiot · May 18, 2005

I'm only sorry that after this scatching defeat of the attempt at lynching Galloway, the American public probably won't be given a chance to witness anything as humiliating to the senate or the Bush administration again.
Click to expand...

Hell, they didn't see it the first time - never mind again. You wouldn't believe how obviously the news glossed over this story, and how (Fox especially) went to great lengths to portray Galloway as a toddler throwing a tantrum. Sadly, most Americans rely on word of mouth for their news, or at best, watch their 30 minute local news broadcast at night. Neither of those sources did this story justice.

I just logged on the MSNBC, and did you know there isn't even a link to this story anymore on the front page? Of course there are several links to the release of the Star Wars movie. It seems like the news anymore goes to great lengths to sensationalize events that are complete non-stories. For example, in the last week or two, the biggest stories have been (in no particular order) the idiot flying his prop plane too close to the White House, the runaway bride, and Michael Jackson's court case. None of these things affect the lives of average everyday Americans one iota. However, things like this, which Americans should think is important, get very little press.

It's like the news will spend the most time on things that aren't necessarily important, but that people will find entertaining. I don't give a flying **** why that idiot flew his plane so close to the White House, but once it was determined that he wasn't a terrorist, had no plans to harm anyone, was flying a small prop plane that probably couldn't have done much damage even if it did fly into a building, and he wasn't shot out of the skies, it became a non-story. To me the most interesting part of the story was that Bush was out on a bike ride during this, and didn't even know the White House had to be evacuated until after he got back.

The Magpie · May 18, 2005

I almost posted a thread on this yesterday afternoon - but had to revise instead

However, now the topic's up and running, I have to applaud the superb, barnstorming performance of Galloway... A politician I had very little time for, until now. For someone to face down Whitehouse inquisitors with such chutzpah was commendable; the fact that his refutations hit home with such potency - remarkable. If it's true that the Americans aren't getting to see this, it's sad, not least because this is Westminster-style debate at its most powerful. I doubt the chair of the committee had ever seen anything quite like it. Full-flowing, counter attacking refutations of all allegations, with nothing sticking. Even the one moment of awkwardness - a question about Respect party funding - was handled with aplomb.

Mr. Galloway goes to Washington - and kicks ass!

Mr Writer · May 18, 2005

Aye, its times like this I'm glad we have a history of real debate in the commons. Shame more people don't watch Parlimentary broadcasts, of particular note recently was Howard teasing blair.

Nakia · May 18, 2005

What I don't understand and would like explained to me is:

What business is it of the US senate what a British subject is doing or has done?

I have not seen anything that indicates that it took place in the US or subject to US law. If I am wrong please enlighten me.

The Magpie · May 18, 2005

I wondered this, too Nakia. I guess it's something to do with the oil vouchers (or whatnot) being distributed by Saddam inappropriately - they were supposed to be for food for the populace etc., but many went "walkies". I'm guessing as most of that money came from the US is why they're the ones trying to track down what happened to it.

Mind you, this is merely what I've pieced together from a few media reports, so if anyone out there is better informed, feel free to correct / elaborate on this.

Barmy Army · May 18, 2005

Good ol' George! Keepin' it real for the Brit massive!

Daie d'Malkin · May 18, 2005

Barmy, RESTECP!

Still, nice to see Galloway taking them to task.

Knockout indeed.

Bion · May 18, 2005

Hmmm... I'd still wait to give this story a bit more time...

From the Scotsman: Galloway bluster fails to convince Senate

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.
Click to expand...

From the Guardian: 'I am not, nor have I ever been, an oil trader'

In a low businesslike voice, the senator from Minnesota read out an indictment of Mr Galloway running through the evidence against him.

"Senior Iraqi officials have confirmed that you, in fact, received oil allocations and that the documents that identify you as an allocation recipient are valid," Mr Coleman said. "If you can provide any evidence that challenges the veracity of these documents or the statements of former Iraqi officials, we'd welcome that input."

Then it was the Respect party leader's turn and any sense of judicial propriety was instantly shattered. The courtroom became a vaudeville theatre, as the MP lampooned his interrogators, accusing them of making "schoolboy howler" mistakes.

...

The wide, wood-panelled room was packed with journalists and spectators. A group of politics students stood at the back. The turnout among senators was less spectacular, however. Only four appeared for the start of the hearing. By the time Mr Galloway took the microphone, there were only two left, Mr Coleman and Carl Levin, the leading Democrat on the panel.

Witnesses in this august setting, a little below and surrounded by the horseshoe bench of powerful senators, are usually awed and almost always on the defensive. Mr Galloway was on the attack from the first moment.

He entered the hearing room with guns blazing, telling journalists his inquisi tors were "crazed", "pro-war", "lickspittles" of the president, and predicting he would turn the tables on them. "I want to put these people on trial. This group of neo-cons is involved in the mother of smokescreens," he said.

...

He danced around many of the questions, frequently responding, "I can do better than that" and answering a slightly different question. His biggest stumble came when he mistakenly assumed Mr Levin had backed the war.

Mr Levin's investigation of the US government's own failure to police sanctions provided Mr Galloway ammunition for his counter-attack. But he made no more headway than his Republican counterpart in his cross-examination of the witness.

When Mr Levin invited Mr Galloway to say whether he was alleging the documentary evidence was forged, the British MP replied: "Well, I have no way of knowing, sir."

"That's fine. So you're not alleging," Mr Levin persisted.

"I have no way of knowing."

"Is it fair to say, since you don't know, you're not alleging? "

"Well, it would have been nice to have seen it before today," Mr Galloway said.

The minuet of exchanges played on for another few minutes before the senators gave up frustrated.

They had come equipped for a trial and found themselves in the role of stooges for a man accustomed to playing to the gallery.
Click to expand...

This hardly seems to me like a victory of contentious British parlimentarianism over the staid US Senate...

Ragusa · May 18, 2005

Seems as if the Senate accusation against Galloway are a warm-up of the older allegations against him in the Daily Telegraph. The Telegraph documents then were allegedly found in Iraq's foreign ministry by investigating journalists of the Daily Telegraph - after the US troops left.

Foreign intelligence services and enemy files are an interesting matter. The German Navy war files, now approx 50 years after WW-II, are still in British and US hands. One of the first thing the CIA did after the fall of the Berlin Wall was to steal the Stasi archives which are now in Langley, Virginia. I can't see why in the case of Iraq the US would have acted different.

Now the US invaded Iraq and seized the ministries, but overlooked Iraqi secret documents, only for some unlikely journalists to miraculously find them? Such a chance - I mean, usually you'd expect interested services to seize and throuughly search such a bulding and not to leave until finished.

The whole story then already had written 'plant' in neon caps on it.

The Telegraph documents then, somewhat unsurprising, turned out to be crude forgeries and Galloway was able to rebutt every single point the Telegraph made.

Senate's 'new evidence' was found in Iraq's oil ministry - after the miracle of the Telegraph documents, the same miracle again! Curioser and curioser ...

In all other essentials, the allegations made by the Senate committee are the same as those originally outlined in the Telegraph articles that resulted in Galloway being awarded £150,000 in libel damages and £1.2m in costs, though an appeal against the high court ruling in his favour is still outstanding.

I presume Mr. Galloway's opposition against the sanctions must have made him some enemies, who seem to own a laserprinter.

More in this in this article in the Guardian.

[ May 18, 2005, 23:45: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Chandos the Red · May 18, 2005

They had come equipped for a trial and found themselves in the role of stooges for a man accustomed to playing to the gallery.
Click to expand...

I find that comment interesting because it was not a trial and Coleman stated as much at the onset. As I commented earlier, there has been much misinformation....

Taluntain · May 18, 2005

Bion, try watching the whole thing yourself. Galloway did evade answering a couple of questions directly, but they were really minor ones of little overall importance beyond his personal opinion. Everything major the lynch mob set out to accuse him of, he's disproved.

Nakia, Galloway chose to appear there voluntarily, because his accusers have found in him a convenient scapegoat to fuel the hate towards the UN. He appeared there basically to clear his name which has been dirtied by the Bush administration based on forged documents, false allegations and outright lies. All the right-wing websites have painted him as the devil, of course parroting the propaganda against him as the truth and nothing but. The whole concept of innocent until proven guilty is apparently long gone in the US. These days the modus operandi of the Bush administration is to spill out as much propaganda, lies and unproven accusations as possible, and then see if the person whose name is set out to be destroyed can dig themselves out of all the crap thrown at them. Galloway's obviously had enough of that and decided to face the lynch mob head-on, for which he should be applauded.

Tassadar · May 19, 2005

Beautiful, simply beautiful. Boy did Galloway let 'em have it. Senator Coleman looked like a little boy.

Nakia · May 19, 2005

Thank you, Tal. I'm not a lawyer so any comments I make are just what seems common sense to me.

Stepping away from the issue of whether or not he is guilty of breaking some laws I still don't understand what business of the USA Congress this is. If he broke British laws it is a UK problem; if he broke International laws then it is a matter for an international court.

I do applaud him.

Ragusa · May 19, 2005

When I told my flatmate about it, he was stunned for a second, and then burst out: "Who the hell do they think they are, demanding from a British national to justify himself in front of the U.S. Senate?!"

Taluntain · May 19, 2005

Nakia, attempts at discrediting the UN and anyone associated with it are all the rage in Washington these days. I guess that is all there is to it. You can see and hear it all the time in the right-wing smear and propaganda campaigns in the US media (and it's also all over all the right-wing Bush support sites, and regularly displayed by Bush supporters here on our forums). "The UN is corrupt, the UN is anti-American, the UN hates our freedom & power, the UN was Saddam's friend, etc."

I guess it's a logical consequence for an organization daring to defy the US on something - even without actually being able to achieve anything. But the sheer defiance was reason enough to launch a US-wide smear and propaganda campaign aimed at the UN and anyone involved with it in some way. Bolton's assignment is merely the latest step in Bush's making clear that the UN will have to pay dearly for daring to defy him, and that the US has nothing but utter contempt for the UN, which dared to say "no" to the Iraq invasion. The UN is considered useless by the Bush administration, because the whole world could see clearly enough that all that really matters is who has the biggest guns and is willing to use them, consequences be damned. Shoot first, ask questions later style. The only problem is that this stubborn UN isn't willing to see the world in light of that philosophy, so it must be discredited - by any means necessary.

This isn't to say that the UN doesn't need reforming, far from it... but the US has no interest in that. The only interest the US currently has is in destroying the UN, so that no one would be able to stand in the way of the US and its interests again.

Anyway, sorry for going a bit off-topic here, but I see this Galloway affair as directly linked to the US's attempts at discrediting the UN, so closely related.

Nakia · May 19, 2005

I understand what you are saying, Tal. However at the risk of offending every Bush supporter I have to make this comment.

I think it is stupid and is setting a baaaad precedent. If we can attack citizens of other countries then we can be attacked. To go even further: I wonder who will survive this sort of thing. The US credibility can't sink much lower. Even Blair is going to have to rethink his relationship with Bush.

Log in or Sign up

George Galloway 1 - 0 Senate [BBC news link]

Mr Writer Gems: 8/31
Latest gem: Skydrop

Chandos the Red This Wheel's on Fire

Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

The Magpie Balance, in all things Veteran

Mr Writer Gems: 8/31
Latest gem: Skydrop

The Magpie Balance, in all things Veteran

Barmy Army Simple mind, simple pleasures... Adored Veteran

Daie d'Malkin Shoulda gone to Specsavers

Bion Gems: 21/31
Latest gem: Pearl

Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

Chandos the Red This Wheel's on Fire

Tassadar Gems: 23/31
Latest gem: Black Opal

Veteran

Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

Log in or Sign up

George Galloway 1 - 0 Senate [BBC news link]

Mr Writer Gems: 8/31Latest gem: Skydrop

Chandos the Red This Wheel's on Fire

Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

The Magpie Balance, in all things Veteran

Mr Writer Gems: 8/31Latest gem: Skydrop

The Magpie Balance, in all things Veteran

Barmy Army Simple mind, simple pleasures... Adored Veteran

Daie d'Malkin Shoulda gone to Specsavers

Bion Gems: 21/31Latest gem: Pearl

Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

Chandos the Red This Wheel's on Fire

Tassadar Gems: 23/31Latest gem: Black Opal Veteran

Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

Mr Writer Gems: 8/31
Latest gem: Skydrop

Mr Writer Gems: 8/31
Latest gem: Skydrop

Bion Gems: 21/31
Latest gem: Pearl

Tassadar Gems: 23/31
Latest gem: Black Opal

Veteran