George Galloway blasts the Senate

Galloway's Gall
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
Published 5/19/2005 12:09:56 AM


WASHINGTON -- Things are getting very grim here in Washington. The Democrats are fighting a desperate rear-guard action against the Republicans on several fronts. They are fighting to maintain their death grip on federal judicial appointments. They are resisting Social Security reform. They are using every expedient to scandalize the President's designated U.N. ambassador, John Bolton. This is not a constructive use of power, for the Democrats have no constructive proposals to advance. It is merely a grim assertion of "no" to the political party now controlling the White House and Capitol Hill.

That is why I personally, as a professional observer of Washington politics, want to thank the Hon. George Galloway, the off-beat Member of Parliament for traveling all the way to Washington from London to provide us with a comic interlude. He has been accused by Senate investigators of profiting from Saddam Hussein's manipulation of the U.N. oil-for-food scam. Blustering and shaking in what sounded to me like a Scottish accent -- though it could have been the consequence of strong drink -- the Hon. Galloway informed the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that the charge is "utterly preposterous." "I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader, and neither has anyone on my behalf," he solemnized.

This line, of course, is an adaption from the line once used by American Communists and fellow travelers while appearing before congressional investigations of Communist subversion during the 1930s, 1940s, and early 1950s. Galloway is a ritualistic leftist. He is so left-wing that he was given the heave-ho by his own Labour Party. Somehow he thought it clever to portray himself in the role once made famous by American leftists testifying before Congress. After his appearance a tumescent Galloway appeared before the cameras to boast of how his British parliamentary style had bested our more "sedate" congressional proceedings.

Galloway seems unaware that modern America does not feel much sympathy for left-wing subversives. Moreover, with the publication of documents from the intelligence archives of the Soviet Union it is clear that many of those leftists and Communists from the past really were engaged in subversion for Moscow. The "Red Scare" was a Red Reality. As to how effective this master of British parliamentarian style was before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, consider this. After Galloway proclaimed his innocence and denounced President George W. Bush's Iraqi war as the result of a "pack of lies," Republicans and Democrats came to amiable agreement for the first time in months. As the ranking Democrat on the committee, Senator Carl Levin, put it, Galloway's performance was "not credible." Levin, like Galloway, opposes the war.

The reason Galloway is not credible is that Levin's committee has documents, mounds of documents, linking European officials to profits from the oil-for-food scam that now appears to be the largest case of political graft in history. Saddam used it to arm himself, buy political allies around the world, and fund terrorists. Galloway admits that he met repeatedly with Saddam's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz and even with Saddam, twice -- as frequently as did Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Galloway admits puckishly and pointlessly. Galloway does not deny the import of documents showing him working with a Jordanian businessman, Fawaz Zureqat, in various deals in Baghdad. He simply denies that he received money from the 20 million barrels of oil documents say he and Zureqat got.

Galloway's buffoonery aside, the evidence now being displayed by our government explains why so many European politicians were so patient with Saddam's numerous breaches of U.N. resolutions. There was money in it for them personally. Up until the revelations of the oil-for-food scam, I had thought that the Europeans' refusal to attack Saddam was simply another example of European cowardice. There was in the months before the invasion of Iraq no great debate over weapons of mass destruction. There was only the Europeans' feigned claim that we had not exhausted every diplomatic approach to Saddam. He ignored U.N. resolutions. He rejected international inspections. He acted willfully and with impunity. Yet at the U.N., officials refused to take action. Now we know why: there and in many foreign capitals officials were on the take.

Source

From the bottom of the source above:

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator, a contributing editor to the New York Sun, and an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute. His latest book is Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House (Regnery Publishing).

Given Galloway's ability to sue, very successfully, I wouldn't want to be Tyrrell right now.

Tyrrell said 'gall', not to be confused with Galloway being 'braindead'.

<Which he would be if he tried to sue>

Yes, happily, Tyrrell was a thorn in Slick's side for eight long years

You're a weird little fella, JW.


In any case, what are your thoughts on the disappearance of the records of Galloway's appearance before the committee?

Aside from the amusement of watching all the panties-in-a-bunch-crowd over the so-called 'missing report', I could care less........about the report specifically or Galloway in general.

Well I'm glad to hear it was only strong drink that propelled the Hon Galloway, I was afeared the Senate was offput by his (un-american) Scottish accent.

However, you did care sufficiently to post Tyrell's partisan drivel . . .

Yes, he makes a living as a mud slinging parasite disuised as an author whilw the Clintons continue on succesfully as if he wasn't there. Well, I guess we all have to do something for a living.

I thought it might amuse some here

Well of course, we dolts here are easily amused, can we get real-time video of some more prisoner interogations?

Detainee, Dys, get the terminology straight. We aren't holding them prisoner, we are merely "detaining" them . . . for however many years it takes to make the dirty, little towel-head bastards admit that they're terrorists.

"Galloway seems unaware that modern America does not feel much sympathy for left-wing subversives."

I think he nailed it with that one sentence. The radical left is irrelevant.

Note how the author rhetorically expounds on how Galloway's exhortations of innocence were "pointless", but doesnt himself dare to reiterate the charge that had been levelled at Galloway before his appearance anymore: namely, that he had personally financially profited from ties to the Iraqi regime. Oops.

Instead, he prefers to heap guilt-by-association on Galloway by claiming that - eh, yes, what exactly?

First, that Galloway "does not deny the import of documents showing him working with a Jordanian businessman [..] in deals with Baghdad". Galloway of course did, exactly, deny being involved in financial "deals with Baghdad" - hence the tortured grammatical construction here of Galloway 'not denying the import of documents' that purport to show, etc. What importance that would be isn't quite clear - not any conclusive proof, apparently, otherwise the author would have postulated on about how Galloway perjured himself.

Second, the guilt-by-association is encapsulated in the improbable formulation that "Galloway is not credible [because there are] mounds of documents, linking European officials to profits from the oil-for-food scam". Again, the author apparently doesnt dare to reiterate the allegation that Galloway was linked to profits from the oil-for-food scam - so instead now Galloway's denial that he was involved is "incredible" because the author claims to know that others were.

Ponder the logic in that.

Finally, those other "European officials" who were conclusively guilty of the graft remain unspecified, of course. The guy's wised up and isnt now anymore going to be caught in accusing someone specific, who might then personally turn up in the Senate to rebut the accusations and stuff.

The ultimate irony of course is that the author uses the "mounds of documents" in Levin's posession to go on again about the link between European officials and the oil-for-food scam, when Levin's Democratic staff on the Senate investigation committee just released another mound of documentary evidence showing that "the Bush Administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the regime of Saddam Hussein but did nothing to stop them" - although "the scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against United Nations staff and European politicians such as the anti-war British MP George Galloway and the former French interior minister Charles Pasqua".

That Senate report, for obvious reasons unmentioned here, "found that US oil purchases accounted for 52 per cent of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together." (link).

Remind me why I mostly stayed out of US politics threads for the last month or so ...

Are we sure that they were ever up there? I searched and searched for an actual transcript a couple of days ago and only ever came up with his prepared statement. But he said a lot more during questioning that I don't ever remember seeing a transcript for -- not even on cspan.

The point Free Duck, is that his prepared statement has disappeared, and the web site of the committee now actually states that no such statement was given the subcommittee.

Oh, I dont think Tyrrell needs to worry ... notice how, despite all the apparant bluster of conclusively rebutting Galloway's self-defence, Tyrell is smart enough not to actually accuse Galloway of pretty much anything anymore in his article - apart from "not denying the import of documents" that purportedly show him in various deals in Baghdad.

(I also just now noticed how it says "in" Baghdad, not "with". Mr. Tyrell has well covered his back.)

Instead, Tyrell reserves his actual inflammatory accusations - about profiting financially, personally, from Saddam's numerous breaches of U.N. resolutions, for unnamed "European officials".

Smart guy

Just Wonders admits that she could care less that her elected officials have cooked public records....a perfect citizen of the country formerly known as the United States of America. We cannot convert the USA to Bushlandia without the cooperation of it's citizens. Good job. You guys are the real traitors IMO. Complicit in the pre meditated murder of our democracy.

Ugh. Ok, that's sadly not a surprise. Egads.