Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 17, 2005
“No Credible Witness”

George Galloway, British Parliament Member, to the American Senate oil-for-food subcommittee of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs; May 17, 2005:

Now Senator,

I gave my heard and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted.

I gave my political-life’s blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq – which killed a million Iraqis, most of them children.

Most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis. But they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis. With the misfortune to be born at that time.

I gave my heard and soul to stop you committing the disaster, that you did commit in invading Iraq.

He has more to say – read on …

And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.

I told the world that Iraq, contradicting your claims, did not have weapons of mass destruction.

I told the world, contradicting your claims, that Iraq had no connection to Al Queda.

I told the world, contradicting your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9-11 2001.

I told the world, contradicting your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country.

And that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.

Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong.

And a hundred-thousand people have payed with their lives.

Sixteen-hundred of them American soldiers sent to their deaths, on a pack of lies.

Fifteen-thousand of them wounded, many of them disabled forever, on a pack of lies.

If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, who´s dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac, who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listen to me and the antiwar movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today.

Senator, this is the mother of all smoke-screens.

You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraqis wealth.

Have a look at the real oil-for-food scandal.

Have a look at the fourteen month you were in charge of Baghdad, the first fourteen month. When eight-point-eight billion dollars of Iraq’s wealth went missing, on your watch.

Have a look at Halliburton and the other American corporations that stole not only Iraq’s money, but the money of the American tax payer.

Have a look at the oil that you didn´t even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who-knows-where.

Have a look at the eight-hundred million dollars you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighting it.

Have a look at the real scandal, breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony at this committee, that the biggest sanctions busters were not me, or Russian politicians, or French politicians.

The real sanctions busters were you own companies, with the connivance of your own government.
Transcribed from a video provided via
Crooks and Liars – well worth to watch

Asked whether Galloway violated his oath to tell the truth before the committee, [subcommittee chairman and Minnesota Republican Norm] Coleman said: "I don’t know. We’ll have to look over the record. I just don’t think he was a credible witness."
British Lawmaker Denies Oil-For-Food Claim

UPDATE:

America Sedation has a much more extensive transcript. (hat tip to Fran)

Comments

US ‘Backed Illegal Iraqi Oil Deals’

“The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions,” the report said. “On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.

Posted by: beq | May 17 2005 19:14 utc | 1

This whole oil-for-food circus is getting to me. They tried to take down Kofi Annan on this. Not that anyone is above suspiscion, but do you not remember the Katharine Gunn affair? She was the GCHQ translator that revealled the US/UK spying on the United Nations. It turned out that everything Annan does is bugged. And what’s more important, Annan knew as much. When he wanted a private conversation he went for a walk in Central Park.
Who in their right mind would try to get away with anything under such circumstances? Yet Nornan Coleman (RIP Paul Wellstone) decrees that Kofi must be fired. Now Mr Coleman prognosticates that Galloway is not a credible witness.
Another Pharisee in high office wearing a dead man’s shoes, just like Bliar.

Posted by: John | May 17 2005 19:35 utc | 2

galloway, for all appearances, is an exception to the rule as politicians go: he stands up for what he feels is right, his feeling of what is right and what is wrong corresponds rather strongly with my feeling for right and wrong, last and most important he speaks truth to power.
the problem with the political classes worldwide (barring apparent exceptions like galloway) is that they don’t react to the people, dont’t take the opinion of those who they purport to represent into account for about just nothing, and lie when caught and even when not caught and there is no need to lie.
galloway and the reaction of the american guy shows pretty well what is wrong with politicians: they dont listen and they have lost their moral compass. in order to correct this problem far more forceful measures than speaches delivered in righteous rage will be needed.

Posted by: name | May 17 2005 19:47 utc | 3

I suspect this may just backfire on Coleman and his band of fools. They probably never expected Galloway to show up and now that he let them have it with both barrels (pardon the pun) the Senate committee comes out much the worse.
Mr Smith goes to Washington was quite popular. Whenever a little guy goes up against the government and makes them look like boobs he becomes a hero in most folks’ eyes. We Americans used to cheer for the underdog. I hope we still do.

Posted by: dan of steele | May 17 2005 19:58 utc | 4

Jesus, truth broadcast on US tv!

Posted by: Friendly Fire | May 17 2005 20:02 utc | 5

ô gorgeous george – you tell ’em

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 17 2005 20:10 utc | 6

Some more truth written in the New York Review of Books: The Secret Way to War about the context of the Downing Street Memo

Posted by: b | May 17 2005 20:11 utc | 7

The US got rid of Boutros Boutros Ghali and installed Annan as a reasonable compromiser, a poor boy who made good (he rose from P4, that is grunt level, to DG), a person who will play the game, in a sincere way. B-B-G would not agree to the bombing of Yougoslavia. Annan allowed it in the sense that he did not object and marshalled the clean up crew.
Even that, of course, was not good enough, and Annan is now discredited. He refused to rubber stamp the invasion of Iraq, and struggled against the sanctions for many years.
Good for Galloway. Bravo.
RIP David Kelly.
Timing.

Posted by: Blackie | May 17 2005 20:19 utc | 8

wow, Galloway is great. Tha little weasel Coleman got just what he deserved (I can’t believe a state like Minnesota elected that smurf). He rubbed the whole Irag debacle in the senates face, and that shoot about lower standards in Washington was fantastic.
The Bushies are such hypocrits. The Newsweek thing is complete bullshit. I believe the frost is off the pumpkin and the rethugs are on the way down. You can’t be that corrupt and expect to stay in power.

Posted by: jdp | May 17 2005 20:24 utc | 9

US approves Iraq trade by man named as Galloway middleman

The Jordanian businessman accused of passing oil money from Saddam Hussein to George Galloway has revealed that he is once again trading in Iraq and making trips to America with the approval of the US authorities.
Fawaz Zureikat was speaking publicly for the first time since he was named by a US Senate investigative committee examining the United Nations oil-for-food programme. He told The Independent that neither the new government in Baghdad nor US officials had raised any objections to him renewing his trade with Iraq.

Mr Zureikat agreed: “The reason for these claims is obvious. They are throwing this up to take attention away from all the violence going on in Iraq and because George has just got back into Parliament.”
The Jordanian Christian said he had never been questioned about his alleged role in the oil-for-food affair or about Mr Galloway.

Posted by: b | May 17 2005 20:27 utc | 10

If Galloway isn’t furious, he is one of the best actors of fury I have seen. His measured, hammering sentences, articulated clearly and delivered in strictest self-control to achieve the maximum effect underline his outrage. Emotio qua ratio. Every sentence a thorn in Bushco’s side. If they know what’s good for them, this hearing will not be aired again.

Posted by: teuton | May 17 2005 20:29 utc | 11

I’m kinda doubtful Galloway’s remarks will get much play in the US. And if they do, they’re so different from what many or most Americans hear that they’ll probably just dismiss most of it, particularly about the sanctions, which had (shameful) bipartisan support in this country.

Posted by: Donald Johnson | May 17 2005 20:32 utc | 12

this needs to be broadcast far & wide. make them choke on their own bullshit.

Posted by: b real | May 17 2005 20:32 utc | 13

has anybody a full transcript
& are the fascist media covering it at all in america & england

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 17 2005 20:38 utc | 14

Just watched the video clip from BCC website – what a pleasure to hear someone talk who knows what he is talking about. Wondering what the impact in the US will be.

Posted by: Fran | May 17 2005 20:45 utc | 16

R’giap here is a transcript of the Galloway speach on dKos

Posted by: Fran | May 17 2005 20:51 utc | 17

r`giap – no transcript (yet) to find
WaPo links the video from their homepage and NYT has quite scathing report (well – for their level)

The subcommittee’s chairman, Senator Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota, seemed a bit taken aback by the intensity of Mr. Galloway’s remarks, stumbling over some questions, or demanding “yes” or “no” answers, which the British lawmaker refused to give.

Mr. Galloway denied having received any money from the scheme.
“What counts is, where’s the money, senator?” he said. “Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars? The answer to that is nobody.”
As he spoke he fixed an unwavering glare in Mr. Coleman’s direction.

Google news count is 745 – quite high. I hope this will carry a bit.

Posted by: b | May 17 2005 21:04 utc | 18

thanks fran
& the coverage of the speech – if any – i’m intrigued how the americanenglishaustralian tyrantmedia will cover gorgeous george

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 17 2005 21:06 utc | 19

thx Fran – didn´t see that (not to critizise – it doesn´t fit completly with the video)

Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice.

Posted by: b | May 17 2005 21:08 utc | 20

The Dead and the Undead – new Riverbend post

Posted by: Nugget | May 17 2005 21:08 utc | 21

george galloway’s adress sound & in its way open. however i wonder how many people will really hear it.
he stood up – which is more than could be said for many who have attacked him. he was not bullied in the same way richard clarke allowed himself to be bullied but this world finds extreme normal people expressing normal outrage at extraordinary events

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 17 2005 22:01 utc | 22

I think that I am going to be sick.

Posted by: hopping madbunny | May 17 2005 22:26 utc | 23

Galloway was, in effect, what the antiwar people and truth seekers had to say in Washington today.
If this gets “binned and ignored” by the SCLM, then we are REALLY well and truly fucked.

Posted by: Friendly Fire | May 17 2005 23:04 utc | 24

Wow! Good stuff, George. The truth resonates well, doesn’t it.

Posted by: DM | May 17 2005 23:05 utc | 25

BBC seems to have the whole thing on tape.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | May 17 2005 23:09 utc | 26

They probably never expected Galloway to show up and now that he let them have it with both barrels…
He sure the hell did that! superb performance.

Posted by: FlashHarry | May 17 2005 23:10 utc | 27

yes flashharry
when those socts get a word in edgewise – they make it felt but read the bbc commentary carefully – they are already relativising & sanitising what he said & escaping the main thrust

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 17 2005 23:36 utc | 28

john brown, be like him

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 18 2005 0:20 utc | 29

Coleman’s decision to allow someone experienced in the cut’n’thrust of debate in the British parliament merely displayed his naivite and stupidity. Galloway’s background in challenging legislative blowhards measures lightyears ahead of anything Coleman could muster. Just look at the comments which occur during question day in the UK parliament. Galloway comes out of that environment and Coleman is just a typical backbencher mushmouth. His massacre could easily have been foretold.

Posted by: PrahaPartizan | May 18 2005 0:41 utc | 30

Jesus, truth broadcast on US tv!
So that’s why my TV fritzed out today!

Posted by: lonesomeG | May 18 2005 1:01 utc | 31

Thats a good start, now if only a major US politician in a like setting, could also step forward and state before the nation and the media what is so painfully obvious to so many. Alas, like an old teacher used to say, sometimes it takes an outsider to objectivly see the WHOLE picture — from the details.

Posted by: anna missed | May 18 2005 4:05 utc | 32

Now I really loved this:
Galloway addressing GBs gift to her former colonies, literary eminence Christopher Snitchens:
“Before the hearing began, the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow even had some scorn left over to bestow generously upon the pro-war writer Christopher Hitchens. “You’re a drink-soaked former-Trotskyist popinjay,” Mr Galloway informed him. “Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink,” he added later, ignoring Mr Hitchens’s questions and staring intently ahead.
Wish Galloway would have taken that piece of crap back with him.
Would have improved the air here; also punditry and what passes for literature, essay, and literary crticism too.

Posted by: FlashHarry | May 18 2005 4:15 utc | 33

This is a strange, even a singular, event: it’s as if the Senate had grown so sick of its own lies that it decided to reach across the ocean and find the one man who’d speak the truth to its face, in a language that it could clearly understand (namely in English, rather than French, German, Spanish, or Arabic). Or is the man so crafty that he could find a pathway of his own through all those institutional defences?

Posted by: alabama | May 18 2005 4:39 utc | 34

Alert! ot, but this needs to be seen! So, I thought I’d post it here too.
Anybody here see David Griffins C-spam talk? Remember, his referal to the Space technology?
If you don’t know about it, you will…
Fire From the Sky!?
Air Force Seeks Bush’s Approval for Space Arms (nytimes.com). (Bugmenot.com?)The US Air Force seeks to develop several frightening weapons,including one called “Rods from God,” which would fire metal rods at a target from the edge of space, striking with the force of a small nuclear weapon. With a presidential directive expected in the weeks to come, what consequences could an approval have on the global community?
…it’s about to get phunky!

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 18 2005 5:05 utc | 35

It may be of interest to note that the (rather well
buried, at least on the Web Page) New York Times
article on Galloway’s committee appearance was
written by the ineffable Judith Miller. Just a coincidence, of course.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | May 18 2005 8:59 utc | 36

O.K., let’s have some balance here shall we, eh? Let’s see the ‘American victory’ over Galloway from the point of view of a rabid American Republican writer:
SOMEBODY, please inject our senators with a heavy dose of testosterone….
….Speaking with an accent that was equal parts Mike Myers and Baghdad Bob, he administered a sound public thrashing of all things American.
He insulted our administration. He decried the war against terror….
It gets worse.
As he hijacked Congress to unleash his outrageous, insulting tirade, our senators did not pipe up.
Rather, they assumed the look of frightened little boys caught with pants around their ankles, nervously awaiting punishment…..
I wonder if they’ll ask him back?

Posted by: Nugget | May 18 2005 9:48 utc | 37

That does it: I’m going to get annoyed at the next person that misspells my name by adding in an ‘e’.

Posted by: Colman | May 18 2005 10:50 utc | 38

Sorry Coalman!

Posted by: Pour speler | May 18 2005 11:09 utc | 39

What entertained me most about it was the expression on Galloway’s face. He knew he was tilting and windmills and did it anyway.

Posted by: Colman | May 18 2005 11:10 utc | 40

i posted my comment yesterday after watching the short video. i looked at the long version today – both at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info – and sat thru the whole thing openmouthed. it’s not like we don’t have less than honorable or outright incompetent people in parliament here (austria), but the extreme dishonesty of this guy (coleman ?) was nothing less than awesome.
it was not so much the IMO commendable performance of mr. galloway, but the debased, characterless, ignorant demeanor of the person (“senator”) asking the questions what shocked me. not only did the person seem rattled by the answers he got, none of which he seemed to like, but he didn’t give the impression he understood what galloway had to say. it was like if he had a script full of preposterous questions “fixed around” some agenda, and when galloway didn’t adhere to the script he was totally thrown off balance.
also, the quality of the questions themselves, mostly composed of if’s, when’s and other hypothetical constructs like “would you be troubled if …” was not IMO designed to shed light on anything. what we saw here was most probably an attempt at muddling evidence of crimes committed by the US administration and at the same time trying to look good, but then came galloway and screwed up their petty show.
if americans elect shockingly ignorant, petty and dishonest characters like this one to senate it’s no wonder things are like they are, and, to vent some spite, americans are the first culprits of the demise of their country (this means YOU too if you are american).

Posted by: name | May 18 2005 11:21 utc | 41

name, Americans have had the process of “election” taken from us. It’s all done with black boxes now, you know.

Posted by: beq | May 18 2005 11:33 utc | 42

Here is the Pravda on the Potomac reporting on Galloway’s testimony.
I found the second paragraph somewhat interesting, from a historical revisionist point of view.
Link

Posted by: FlashHarry | May 18 2005 12:35 utc | 43

Bush, Blair summoned to Iraq Tribunal in Istanbul
Representatives of the World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) yesterday issued summonses for US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to appear at the five-day final hearing of the tribunal set to take place in Istanbul starting on June 23-27.
The Istanbul session is expected to reach a final conclusion by examining the results of previous sessions as well as new reports and testimonies. The WTI is a worldwide initiative aiming at recording the crimes and violations that were committed during and after the Iraq war.
Will George W(ar dodger) Bush or Tony ‘Tonto’ Blair have the courage of George Galloway and present themselves before the tribunal? (Sounds of chickens squawking noisily in reply)

Posted by: Nugget | May 18 2005 12:37 utc | 44

Thanks, Nugget. Maybe they can get Galloway to represent…oh nevermind.

Posted by: beq | May 18 2005 12:47 utc | 45

Watch the Repugs ram a hot poker up the Dems’ asses in the Nuclear option debate on C-Span right now.
In a spirit of compromise, I think the Dem Senators should be wearing hoods, tied to electric wires and whipped while giving their speeches.
Or maybe thrown into a big naked pile on the floor of the Senate.
Whatever works best for the Felicide Pretender.

Posted by: Lupin | May 18 2005 15:42 utc | 46

Right now we’re at “Miss Prissy Does Dallas” stage. It’s so disgusting you can’t believe it.
Tape this, friends. Someday when you’re in the Resistance Maquis of Northern Calif., you’ll want to show this to your kids when they ask you, “Daddy what happened to America?”

Posted by: Lupin | May 18 2005 16:28 utc | 47

A Credible Witness? A Soldier’s Thoughts by way of MyDD

Every day over here in Iraq I get up and put my uniform and body armor on. I wear the U.S. Flag on my right shoulder next to my combat patch. I earned the right to wear this uniform and I “earned” that combat patch during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Each day that goes by it gets harder to hold my head high while wearing that uniform over here in Iraq. It gets harder and harder as we learn more of the truth behind this war. How many died because of these “lies” as Mr. Galloway calls them. How many have I killed because of them?

Posted by: beq | May 18 2005 17:06 utc | 48

Uncle $cam upthread on “Rods from Space” –
Noah Shachtman follows such programs and explains

Posted by: b | May 18 2005 18:04 utc | 49

I know you did know that Norm Coleman is a fool. The Nation on Galloway/Coleman.

Posted by: b | May 18 2005 18:13 utc | 50

Kholman not to worry. Wink. 🙂
Galloway beat the previous blast, won in court.
Why aren’t there more of him? It can be done.
Being elected gave him a tremedous boost a’ course.

Posted by: Blackie | May 18 2005 19:32 utc | 51

Galloway made my day. More power to him.

Posted by: stoy | May 19 2005 0:42 utc | 52

Upthread – from R’Giap :-
george galloway’s adress sound & in its way open. however i wonder how many people will really hear it.
Yes – well – it does seem up is down – and all that crap. What will people really “hear”.
From a look at the Scotsman (a conservative rag it seems – I remember that no self-respecting Glaswegian would ever read it) – all the euphoria on this thread re Galloway’s performance is no more than pissing into the wind.
This is what you see at news.scotsman.com
Galloway bluster fails to convince Senate
GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN
CHIEF NEWS CORRESPONDENT
Despite a typically bombastic performance, Mr Galloway was repeatedly pinned down by questions he would not, or could not, answer.
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
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.
Watchdog may ask police to investigate Galloway fund
GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN
CHIEF NEWS CORRESPONDENT
Galloway fund may face police inquiry
GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN
CHIEF NEWS CORRESPONDENT
Someone out to get George Galloway, you think?

Posted by: DM | May 19 2005 1:50 utc | 53

damn. slow traffic today. where is everyone?
stan goff writes a fun open letter to the democrats after gorgeous george shows how easy it is to stand up to the bullies.

If Democrats had half the spine that Galloway does… if you would stop chasing your creepy little careers through the caviar and chicken-salad circuits of duck-and-cover American political double-speak, then not only would people like me not be calling for all to abandon the Democratic Party and take their fight to the streets like good Bolivians… not only that, but you’d have won the last election.

Aside from Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, and Cynthia McKinney (not surprisingly Black women who know where it goes if you let rich white men get away with giving you a bunch of shit) and a precious few others, the Democratic Party is not only just another party controlled by big capitalists; it is not even a good *capitalist* opposition party (much less a real opposition).
You don’t deserve anyone’s support, not even as a tactical matter any longer, because you end up doing ritual verbal combat then giving the “cornpone Nazis” of the Republcan Party any goddamn thing they want. That’s why Galloway rhetorically spanking that soap-opera-looking shitbird was the most satisfying thing many of us have seen in months.
That’s exactly why some of us are saying go Bolivian on their asses. Tell the Democratic Leadership Council to eat shit and die. Stop working, stop obeying, block the streets and highways, shut down the capital, and watch them choke on their own sewage. If Americans weren’t so bewildered by television, so addled and soft from junk food and cars and electronic appliances, and so addicted to their own cultural superficiality, they might begin organizing general strikes: women’s strikes, workers strikes (without union bureaucrats to calm them down), Black people strikes, Brown people strikes, info-tech strikes, eco-strikes, all working our way up to One Big Strike.
It’s a ways off, but it’s coming. Of course, there won’t be any Democrats there. They’ll be wringing their hands about their defunct careers, and conducting focus groups to see how they can shift further to the right in the next election.
And the reason this doesn’t happen is that people still hang their thin hopes on you, on electing Democrats who stab them in the back the first chance they get. But Galloway’s appearance before the U.S. Senate moved us an inch closer to the Big Strike and an inch further away from your worthless asses.
Because Galloway didn’t, as some are saying, expose the Republicans.
Someone with a full frontal lobotomy could expose a Republican politician.
He exposed the spinelessness of the Democrats.

a big hellllyeah
and william blum, in his latest [may 13th] anti-empire rpt, writes:

On April 23, speaking in Minneapolis before the ACLU, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean declared: “Now that we’re there [in Iraq], we’re there and we can’t get out. … I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now.”
That can mean one of two things: It could mean that Dean believes that the intentions of the Bush administration in Iraq are honorable, that they mean well by the Iraqi people, that the bombing, invasion, occupation, torture, and daily humiliation have all been acts of love; and that oil and the care and feeding of American corporations play no role. Or it can mean that he supports the objectives of US imperialism and is opposed to abandoning them.
During the 2004 presidential primaries it was stated repeatedly that Dean was “against the Iraq war”. I was never interested enough in him or the Democrats to track down just what this really meant, to pinpoint precisely what the basis of his opposition to the war was, but I assumed it was not anything approaching the unequivocal opposition that characterized the majority of the anti-war movement, including many of Dean’s supporters. I hope that their disillusionment has at least been enlightening.

exxxxactly.

Posted by: b real | May 19 2005 3:20 utc | 54

Amusing rants by Stan Goff and the other bloviator, there, b real.
Solves nothing, says nothing, and provides no realistic suggestions.
The left in their own way are about as charismatic and chocked full of ideas as, say, John Kerry, Dick Gephart, or Joseph Lieberman.
Pretty pathetic state of affairs, all the way around.

Posted by: FlashHarry | May 19 2005 4:02 utc | 55

from the link provided by FlashHarry – what Coleman said in his ‘credible witness’ comments ..

Coleman said he did not believe Galloway came across as a “credible witness” and warned that his staff would examine his testimony to determine whether he perjured himself. “If in fact he lied to this committee, there will have to be consequences,” Coleman told reporters after the hearing.

Consequences? Consequences for liars? This is indeed good news.
O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!

Posted by: DM | May 19 2005 5:51 utc | 56

The Independent on Galloway appearance – unfortunately I think they are right.
Galloway: The man who took on America

In Britain, the prospect of such a confrontation would have sketch-writers and columnists salivating days in advance. But that is not the American way. Honourable exception should be made for the New York Post, Murdoch-owned and the nearest thing in the US to a Fleet Street tabloid. “Brit Fries Senators in Oil” was the headline on a news story that noted the “stunning audacity” of Mr Galloway’s performance, how he had caught Mr Coleman and his colleagues “flatfooted” (only one of whom was left when the chairman brought the embarrassment to an end).

But Bill Frist and Harry Reid, the Senate majority and minority leaders, droned on as if they were introducing an amendment on the Highway Financing Bill. As usual, the cameras remained fixed on the speaker. By convention, panning shots are banned, for the simple reason that these important gentlemen would be seen delivering their Philippics to rows of empty benches. But then again, that is how America likes its formal politics; sedate, dignified, eschewing the sort of personal attack delivered by Mr Galloway.
Long, long ago, in the 1950 World Cup in Uruguay, the unfancied US scored a 1-0 victory over an all-conquering England football team. The performance on Capitol Hill of Mr Galloway (although he is anything but a Sassenach) might be seen as some belated revenge for that humiliation.
But, if truth be told, the political shock was little more noticed here – and is likely to have as little enduring impact – than that never-to-be forgotten sporting upset half a century ago.

Bold is mine, just liked that headline, despite it comming from Murdoch press, or maybe because of it – heck, I don’t know.

Posted by: Fran | May 19 2005 7:55 utc | 57

But then again, that is how America likes its formal politics; sedate, dignified, eschewing the sort of personal attack delivered by Mr Galloway.
Dignified, my arse. If these bastards think that personal attacks by Galloway are “undignified” they havn’t seen anything yet. This is not going away, and there is nowhere for them to hide.

Posted by: DM | May 19 2005 8:20 utc | 58

I actually watched the whole thing on the BBC link, and it was incredibly satisfying. But the best part, now that I think of it, was the one time a senator challenged Galloway on facts (I’m guessing it was Reid challenging, but it doesn’t matter much), asserting that he (Reid?) had not voted for war on Iraq. The senator wenrt on to say. “You’ve got your facts wrong there.”
This was immensely revealing. At no other point was Galloway challenged on his facts, including a great number of accusations directed at Coleman and other senators. I can only conclude that Coleman et al have stipulated every other accusation made by Galloway.
“…sent to their deaths, on a pack of lies.”
no challenge…

Posted by: citizen | May 19 2005 14:40 utc | 59

apparently that was Senator Levin (not Reid)
I’ll post the link if I find a full transcript.

Posted by: citizen | May 19 2005 17:47 utc | 60

No transcript, but you can find the Senators’ lone objection to Galloway’s accusations at this spot on the official Senate tape of the hearing here:
2:35:36-2:35:49 on the official Senate tape
QUOTE
GG: But please, Senator, you supported the illegal attack on Iran. Don’t talk to me about illegality.
CL: Sorry about that, I didn’t . But that’s beside the point. That, that’s besides the point. You’re wrong on your facts.
GG: I’m collectively talking about the Senate, not you personally.

I assume that this was the only accusation in response to which anyone on the panel was confident they could produce evidence to absolve Senate or Senators of blame.

Posted by: citizen | May 20 2005 8:50 utc | 61

I should be specific.
Notice that Levin only defends himself, not the Senate. Perhaps because it is not really possible to defend the Senate’s actions rationally, and the only way is to be absolutely silent on the issue.
The war is itself a crime.

Posted by: citizen | May 20 2005 8:55 utc | 62

Hmmm, don’t have the link handy, however, Galloway’s entire testimony is no longer on the official record of the relevant Senate committee … there’s now just a reference to his ‘appearance’ before the committee … it’s all been expunged …
Talk about rewriting history/events/cencorship … Sheesh !

Posted by: Outraged | May 20 2005 15:03 utc | 63

Galloway Senate testimony PDF goes AWOL
Evidence ‘missing’ from Committee website
Iain Thomson, vnunet.com 20 May 2005

The website for the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs has removed testimony from UK MP George Galloway from its website.
All other witness testimonies for the hearings on the Oil for Food scandal are available on the Committee’s website in PDF form. But Galloway’s testimony is the only document not on the site …

Hmmm ?

Posted by: Outraged | May 20 2005 15:13 utc | 64

I understand that: office@respectcoalition.org will serve as a way to show appreciation if anyone cares to do so.

Posted by: beq | May 20 2005 15:21 utc | 65

…or
galloway@parliament.uk

Posted by: beq | May 20 2005 18:47 utc | 66

Thank you very mutch, telling the true too hard this days.

Posted by: di costa chebli | Jul 19 2005 19:57 utc | 67