George Galloway blasts the Senate

goodfielder wrote:

"hotdogs! soda! polaroid cameras! Closeout sale!"

Now THAT'S funny..........typical Oz humour......I have just woken up, and am trying to focus on the screen in an effort to find out what has been going on. You just made me snort my coffee out through my nose.

NB....Read the previous two postings to this quoted comment, to fully appreciate the joke.

Thanks very much!

Galloway to cash in on his tongue-lashing of US senators

PETER DOYLE

MAVERICK MP "Gorgeous" George Galloway is set for a money-spinning speaking tour of America's Ivy League colleges following his barnstorming performance at the United States senate.

Washington was buzzing after the former boxer traded verbal blows with senators who had accused him of making blood money from Iraq's Oil-for-Food programme.

The reading public would be fools for believing him.

For what it matters, Lloyd Bentsen delivered those words.

Benny Hill's TV persona = buffoon.

It may well be that Galloway will have a brief stint as the darling of the lecture circuit on several campuses. However I doubt seriously that his appeal will grow with added exposure - and scrutiny. He might be wiser to leave the stage while the applause lasts.

Galloway's rhetorical proletarian appeal has a good deal in common with that of other temporarily successful practicioners of these verbal arts, including Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Joe McCarthy, George Wallace, and many others.

The Senate Committee was easy pickings for him. Their hearings are lazy rituals scripted by their staffs and generally devoid of either real debate or surprise. The normal routine is for the Senators do continue an ongoing ritualized debate with each other, using the witnesses as momentary foils for their leisurely arguments. Galloway didn't play that game. The Senators were fools for not anticipating this, but wise to let it pass once he appeared.

The reading public would be fools for believing him.

It may well be that Galloway will have a brief stint as the darling of the lecture circuit on several campuses. However I doubt seriously that his appeal will grow with added exposure - and scrutiny. He might be wiser to leave the stage while the applause lasts.

Let me think about this...
One side accuses the other of profiting monetarily from oil for food
The accused says, "You have no evidence of me ever recieving money"
The accuser fails to present any such evidence.....

Which side should I believe in this exchange?

In my America it doesn't matter who is accused, they are innocent until proven guilty. The only fools are those that condemn without evidence.

parados wrote:

Let me think about this...
One side accuses the other of profiting monetarily from oil for food
The accused says, "You have no evidence of me ever recieving money"
The accuser fails to present any such evidence.....

Which side should I believe in this exchange?

In my America it doesn't matter who is accused, they are innocent until proven guilty. The only fools are those that condemn without evidence.

Unless of course the accused is the US military, and the accusers are terrorists.

[Let me think about this...
One side accuses the other of profiting monetarily from oil for food
The accused says, "You have no evidence of me ever recieving money"
The accuser fails to present any such evidence.....

Which side should I believe in this exchange?

In my America it doesn't matter who is accused, they are innocent until proven guilty. The only fools are those that condemn without evidence.

Would you be willing to grant the U.S. Government officials who have stated they do have evidence indicating Galloway's complicity in payoffs the same presumption of innocence that you are demanding for this British MP who was expelled from his own party? It doesn't appear that way.

However, in that this is a case of the accusers being the permanent subcommittee for investigations of the Senate Committee for Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the accused Mr. George Galloway, MP--your remarks are irrelevant.

And as georgeob1 has just pointed out, so were parados'.

georgeob1 wrote:

Would you be willing to grant the U.S. Government officials who have stated they do have evidence indicating Galloway's complicity in payoffs the same presumption of innocence that you are demanding for this British MP who was expelled from his own party? It doesn't appear that way.

Their relative guilt or innocence has absolutely no bearing no the reliabilty of the evidence they present. I note that you have never taken notice of Galloway having won a large settlement in a lawsuit against The Daily Telegraph for accusations based upon exactly this evidence.

parados wrote:

[Let me think about this...
One side accuses the other of profiting monetarily from oil for food
The accused says, "You have no evidence of me ever recieving money"
The accuser fails to present any such evidence.....

Which side should I believe in this exchange?

In my America it doesn't matter who is accused, they are innocent until proven guilty. The only fools are those that condemn without evidence.

No one has accused Galloway in a court of law, so this reference to rules of evidence and legal presumption is quite irellevant.

Would you be willing to grant the U.S. Government officials who have stated they do have evidence indicating Galloway's complicity in payoffs the same presumption of innocence that you are demanding for this British MP who was expelled from his own party? It doesn't appear that way.

Ticomaya wrote:

And as georgeob1 has just pointed out, so were parados'.

Despite your decision to worship at the altar of georgeob1, it is not axiomatic that his making a contention, one which is dubious at best, makes something a fact. The reason that people file and win defamation of character suits is precisely because the spoken and the written word can punish someone in the public forum as surely and as harshly as any sentence of a duly constituted court.

Unless of course the accused is the US military, and the accusers are terrorists.