Bush Administration Backed Illegal Oil For Food Deals

If GWB can be proven to have participated in illegal OfF deals, then he should be impeached. Bring on Cheaney.

 

That Galloway testimony was freaking incredible.

 

And all of those posts have been more accurate and constructive than anything you or your brother have brought to the table.

The only insults I ever hurl are directed at you and your brother's idiotic, xenophobic, and inflammatory comments.

I will always answer reasoned comments with the same. As long as you and your brother continue to troll this board with the garbage you do, continue to expect me to call you on your sh*t and tell it exactly like it is. I guarantee that I will always give you back exactly what you give this board.

No problem, continue to expect insults any time you post something idiotic, xenophobic, or inflammatory.

 

Asked whether Galloway violated his oath to tell the truth before the committee, Coleman said: "I don't know. We'll have to look over the record. I just don't think he was a credible witness."

in other words, Coleman said: "I don't understand what he just said. I'll have to get someone to explain it to me. I just can't believe how incredible he was."

 

I don't know what is more amusing, your continued attempts to paint me as a "hippie" (considering that I am and have been a professional for a couple of decades now) or the fact that you will actually spend time to create a website for the purpose.

I have never been in contact with a more complete moron than you have proven yourself to be. Congratulations.

 

Coleman is the main one who brought up the charges against Galloway. Don't you think he would be the one to know if he was being truthful?

I find his response very telling.

And speaking of response; the response by the apologists in this thread is amusing. Can't debate the substance, just make jokes to divert.

Very telling

 

the really sad part bout this whole fiasco is the fact that its paul wellstone's seat that coleman has now.

 

Actually, had the liberals not used Wellstone's funeral as a campaign rally, Coleman never would have won the seat -- would have been Mondale.

 

what i find incredible here is how neatly posts in this thread break down along typical bbs partisan lines, with liberals, as if on auto-pilot, adopting the the anti-bush line, w/o regard to the seriousness of the charges, and making it seem as if only senate republicans were questioning galloway. in fact, the commitee was pretty united in it's indictment of galloway. you'd never know that from the cheering on he's received from the usual suspects here.

 

Agreed. I loved it when he talked about the money that paid for Coleman's trips and where that came from. It was clear he wasn't going to be the fall guy for anything, or have nonsense pinned on him, just because his views opposed those of people in charge.

 

I think because Galloway did something Dems haven't done for quite sometime, and that is exhibit a backbone, and stand his ground. There were some Dems grilling him as well, and he didn't back down from them either. Galloway spoke plainly to the point, and held his ground, and then some.

 

I'm a cycling fan and in the world of professional cycling (that's Lance Armstrong's sport for those who don't follow) using dope to improve performance is very popular. It's also illigal (both against racing rules and against the law in many European countires).

Whenever a cyclist tests positive for some performance enhancing drug they almost always cry and scream that they are innocent and that they will PROVE their innocence and that there must be some sort of conspiracy against them and there is NO WAY they would ever, ever subject their bodies to those dangerious substances. The fans of the accused almost always stand behind their guy and refuse to believe the evidence and insist that, if he says he's clean he must be and the evidence must be wrong.

But then the facts come out and, most of the time, they are guilty and finally admit it.

This Galloway guy is acting just like those cyclists do who get caught doping: He's screaming as loud as he can that he's innocent to try to win in the court of public opinion. We'll see if he's guilty or not but just because he's articulate and loud doesn't mean he's right. Of course, just because he's accused doesn't mean he's guilty either. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. We'll see.

 

And how are the apologists acting in this thread?

 

Bushies are screwed now. Their Bash Newsweek program is going to take a back seat to Galloway, better video.

 

So, just because they're doing it it's okay for you to do it? Or, to put it another way, maybe the "apologists" are doing it because YOU did it!

If they jumped off a cliff, would you?

Guys, let it play out and we'll see who's right. The truth, as usual, is probably somewhere in the middle and each side will try to spin it their way and all the partisan's will buy into their side's arguement and criticize the other side's.

Can't you see how stupid partisan politics is? It's great to have two sides with regard to competeing ideas and checks and balances. But it seems that the only reasons parties exist these days is to "win" regardless of what the cost is or what the truth is.

 

Do what chase?

BTW I agree about the partisan politics.

But don't you find it a bit hypocritical that the US is conducting this investigation and criticizing other countries and governments about their involvement in this when there is evidence that the US was one of the main beneficiaries of this "oil for food" program?

Just a thought.

 

Who is this guy and why do we care?

 

The point isn't whether the US is being hypocritical; the point is that we don't know who's right yet. You're assuming the U.S. is wrong and therefore hypocritical but what if that guy is just lying to save his skin (something that is not unheard of).

As I mentioned, the truth will probably lie somewhere in the middle and not be as clear as "U.S. = right; Galloway = wrong" or vice versa. We may both be a little right and a little wrong or the U.S. and Galloway may both be guilty but to different degrees, etc...

With regard to who should do the investigation... that's a great question. Clearly the U.N. has demostrated it's not honest enough to do so and what other country do you trust? Don't you think that it's hypocritical that an organization like the U.N. exists to make sure everyone plays nice but then manipulates events so that administrators can get rich? That, to me, is hypocritical.

Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?

 

you know whats hypocritical. when the right bashes the UN at every opportunity yet justifies invading iraq on the basis that it violated UN resolutions. i find that fairly hypocritical.

 

here's the scostman on galloway's testimony. note the exchanges between galloway and chief apologista Carl Levin.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=540962005

--
Galloway bluster fails to convince Senate

GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN
CHIEF NEWS CORRESPONDENT

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 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

Story in full 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".

But Mr Coleman, accused by the MP of being "remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice", appeared unswayed by Mr Galloway’s testimony. "If in fact he lied to this committee, there will have to be consequences," he said afterwards.

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."

The committee’s report on Mr Galloway’s alleged involvement, published to coincide with yesterday’s hearing, pulled few punches. Despite the MP’s denials, it said, the evidence showed that: "Iraq granted George Galloway allocations for millions of barrels of oil under the oil-for-food programme.

"Moreover, some evidence indicates that Galloway appeared to use a charity for children’s leukaemia to conceal payments associated with at least one such allocation. Lastly, according to senior Saddam officials, the oil allocations were granted by Iraq because of Galloway’s support for the Saddam regime and his opposition to UN sanctions."

Mr Galloway, the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, had pledged to take the fight to the committee and did not disappoint. Sitting up straight, he stared ahead as he delivered an impassioned diatribe against the US approach to Iraq.

"I am not now, nor have I ever been an oil trader and neither has anyone on my behalf," he told the chairman. "I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and American governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas."

In a lengthy opening statement, Mr Galloway insisted the sub-committee had no evidence against him.

"You have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names from Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet government in Iraq."

And Mr Galloway rejected a claim in the sub-committee’s report that he had had "many" meetings with Saddam Hussein, saying he had only met the former dictator twice.

"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," he said.

It was the speech of a man believing himself wronged: "I gave my heart and soul to stop you from committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq," he said. "And I told the world that the case for war was a pack of lies."

And he poured scorn on the documentation produced in evidence against him, insisting, on his oath, that he had never heard of the company which, it was suggested, acted as a conduit for oil deals on his behalf.

He accused the sub-committee of committing a "schoolboy howler" in its presentation of the evidence.

Under repeated questioning, Mr Galloway conceded that Mr Zureikat did have extensive business dealings with the Saddam regime but, challenged over whether his friend’s generous contributions to the Mariam Appeal - £900,000 by his own previous assessments - could have come from the sale of oil, he stonewalled.

Urged to say if he would repay the cash if it could be proved to have come from such a source, he again ducked the question. Mr Galloway first met Mr Zureikat, a Jordanian businessman, through his now-estranged wife Amineh Abu-Zayyad, who had attended the same university in Jordan. The men became friends and set up the Mariam Appeal in 1998.

• BBC Scotland flew its own reporter, Bob Wylie, out to cover Mr Galloway’s appearance, while the corporation is looking to make job cuts and savings.