Galloway’s Humour
Whatever your views of George Galloway (and having been up close I tend towards heavy dislike), you’ve have to admit that his testimony yesterday before the Senate sub-committee investigating the the Iraqi Oil-For-Food scandal was brilliant television. It’s bound turn up on those 100 best moments of the year shows come December.
He’s an amazing speaker, no doubt. He gave his lengthy opening address without notes staring directly ahead at the Senators in front of him. There’s a four minute sample of video and a link to the full 47 minutes of his testimony here. The Times have provided a transcript of his opening statement. My favourite part was:
“As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defence made of his.
Anybody sticking it to Rumsfeld before such an audience deserves applause.
Galloway tripped up once but it was a significant trip I thought. He could not give a straight answer about his associate Fawaz Zureikat’s business dealings with Iraq and whether he was “troubled” about the origins of the money Zureikat gave to Galloway’s Mariam Appeal. If that money came from dealings in oil and Galloway is troubled by that, he certainly didn’t admit it to the committee, stating - weaselly - only that political fundraising is “messy”.
But then he had a point when he drew attention to Senator Norm Coleman’s (the committee chairman) campaign contributors: “I don’t suppose you ask any of them how they made the money they give you.”
So, Galloway had another day in the sun. But really it was another score draw. I doubt anybody changed their opinions either way.
I can’t really make my mind up. If he’d had a voucher for 20 million barrels of oil, where are the proceeds of any sales? That’s a boatload of cash - you can’t hide it under a mattress. That said, why hasn’t Galloway given up the accounts of his Mariam Appeal as he said he would? If there was real provable dirt on Galloway wouldn’t somebody in the know have gone to a sympathetic newspaper already? The likes of the Telegraph would jump at it. But if Galloway’s clean why the evasion about Fawaz Zureikat?
Which way to jump?
Posted on May 18th, 2005 at 10:46 am
| See also • A proper gander • …lay a little egg for me • Three billion, that’s the magic number |
Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe By Email • Print This Post • • • |
|
Filed under Uncategorized |
I am more or less neutral on GG; if there was any real dirt on him, Blair would have used that in the election to help Ms. King.
All I can say is that he was spot-on vis a vis the war and I give him an away 2-1 win.
The lack of accounts is like “the trout in the milk”.
Completely agree. There’s something I find rather sinister about Gorgeous George, but to stand in front of the comittee and say “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,” takes great big King Kong balls and deserves congratulation.
The Zureikat question couldn’t be answered because it was, essentially, an unanswerable variant on an old theme: “would you be troubled if you were beating your wife?”
The reason he could go to Washington and look so confident is because he’s basically telling the truth; the critical documents underpinning the Senate’s case are most likely forgeries, there is not a scrap of documentation showing where Galloway’s alleged millions are, the Mariam Appeal has been cleared by the Charities Commission… all we are left with is whether Zureikat was profitting from oil-for-food. If he was, he joins a long list of others, mostly in the US; if he wasn’t, he wasn’t. Having demonstrated that he was, you then have to establish a credible, financial link between him and Galloway. The Senate committee weren’t able to do this and neither, I’d wager, will anyone else.
I am pretty neutral on Galloway. As a battler he is impressive without doubt and his peformance before the Senate committee was pretty overwhelming. The senators had little on him and frankly their attack on him seems more motivated by malice than evidence.
I agree with Meaders that the Zureikat question was invalid. It was an attempt to get him to rat on a friend. If there is a problem it is regarding the lack of clear financial records on Miriam Appeal but I think he is in th eclear on th substantive accusations.
This does not rule out the possibility of the US going all out to damage him and other anti war campaigners. After all the whole war story has been shrouded in the dishonsty of those who promoted the war.
Like him or loathe him, you have to admire his “gentleman’s courage”. For what it’s worth, I’d say the lack of anything approaching convincing evidence is pretty telling. An attempted smear by the US right (and friends) seems the most likely explanation.
Not that I’m particularly fond of the Mercedes driving, cigar smoking, luxury holiday villa owning socialist, I hasten to add.
Curious Hamster; is that a Dacha in Yalta, a Cuban Lewinsty and a Zil that smokes?
This post has been removed by the author.
The Zureikat question was pointless. It didn’t relate to any question of fact or evidence, only Galloway’s feelings about the issue.
I too am undecided on GG. I looks to me like the Media and the Senate are throwing lots of mud in the hope that some will stick.
I agree with you Justin… Compelling TV. For having the balls to say even half of what he said, I applaud the man. I doubt he will ever get a better opportunity.
“the Mariam Appeal has been cleared by the Charities Commission”: that won’t do. They complained that they had no accounts to examine; I don’t call that “being cleared”.
I was not a fan.
The American parliamentary process is very formal, much more restrained than the British one. Everyone shouts in Britain, it’s considered quite bad manners to do so in America. Even filibusterers tend to do something boring, like read the phone book, instead of shouting and grandstanding. People were appalled when Dick Cheney told someone to go fuck himself on the senate floor (although it was during a photo call, not a debate.)
I thought it was quite poor form to disrespect another country’s political etiquette. Imagine if Dick Lugar, say, came to Britain’s House of Commons and shouted out from behind the white line? Although Dick Lugar’s pretty internationally savvy, so I doubt it.
For what’s it’s worth, Galloway spoke for me in telling my government what I think of it.
And for some interesting context on Galloway’s testimony vs Coleman’s and especially Levins’ questions, check out Thane Rosenbaum’s “The Myth of Moral Justice.”
And for Katie, what would your reaction be if you were being smeared for something you had nothing to do with? Especially by a government that is responsible for KILLING MILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY CHILDREN, for a few dollars more.
I feel sorry for ALL of you who cannot relate to that kind of moral outrage.
As for the Zureikat question, he took that money in the hopes of saving a child’s life. While the ends do not necessarily justify the means, which is the worse moral injustice:
taking money to save a child’s life where a small portion came from some oil deal, or the instituting of infanticide as policy?
In regards to campaign contributions, even Norm Coleman, however tongue in cheek it may have been said, said that he would not look too closely where the money came from.
How much is Biden getting from MBNA for his vote for the Bankruptcy Bill, a bill that will hurt millions of American’s who can’t afford their mortgages, health care, child care, etc., because they aren’t paid enough or have lost jobs and are the victims of predatory lending.
I guess America is the land of caveat emptor where a sucker is born every minute. America is a country without a conscience. It deserves what Galloway gave it in his testimony.
You’re right, I’d find it hard to keep my temper.
But I’d try, because I would be speaking to people with whom I fundamentally disagree, and they are never going to be swayed by vitriol. They just aren’t. You can’t argue someone into faith.
You’ve got to talk the language of the people you disagree with if you actually want them to agree with you. Of course, in real life, I am full of vitriol, but in a professional context, I would try very hard to be reasonable.
Dear Katie:
With all due respect, your comment that it “was quite poor form [for George Galloway] to disrespect another country’s political etiquette” is laughable. His name was blackened worldwide by one of the nastiest nonentities in politics anywhere in the world, Norm Coleman. GG has every right to defend himself and he did so with gusto, walking into the lions den and speaking courteously but bluntly, without notes and face to face with his accusers. All cowardly Coleman could do was to spread further innuendoes once he was out of GG’s presence. Unfortunately, Carl Levin let himself down badly by doing the same thing. What a pity. I thought he was better than that.
No, I’m sorry Katie, your self-righteous indignation just doesn’t hack it here.
GG is good fun, by the evidence of the audience on Q Time (the BBC Dumblbore family Charity show) he also expresses very popular views - which of course , when a loyal Party member of New Labour he was more than happy to supress in Parliament where it might have had some effect.
I enjoyed th prospect of the evidently shocked Sen. Coleman bemerding his trousers and turned to
The Senate report ;
http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/REPORTwchartsIllegalSurchargesKhoralAmayaFINAL.pdf
Which I recommend. 132 pages too long to precis here.
$53 Mn of oil was shipped immediately prior to the war by Jordanian business men with the knowledge and support of the US. This is documented in detail. The committee asked the DOD and the DOS in lengthy detailed letters to respond.
They have not replied.
Should you go to the Senate reports of the days proceedings you will find that although allother witnesses have a PDF file of their testimony. GG does not. There is no record of his evidence.
GG has simply disappeared.
In all the corruption that went on, it is impossible to single out precisely who benefited but $53 Mn went missing under the noses of the US Navy.
Read it, it beats F Forsyth.