George Galloway blasts the Senate

Steve & Lord Ellpus: You know ... your grilling and presumptions here are really quite insulting. I've simply been away from my computer. I believe you've done to me what you've damned the Senate committee for doing to Mr. G.

Reality check, boys. I'm not on trial in your court.

JTT wrote:

WhoodaThunk wrote:

There was an interesting piece on NPR this morning about the alleged biases of the NPR reporting staff. Anyone catch that?

Nope, but you know, I'd really like to.

I heard it....part of it was that they are biased toward Palestinians.

WhoodaThunk wrote:

Steve & Lord Ellpus: You know ... your grilling and presumptions here are really quite insulting. I've simply been away from my computer. I believe you've done to me what you've damned the Senate committee for doing to Mr. G.

Reality check, boys. I'm not on trial in your court.

I havent grilled you Whooda, and I dont think I've presumed anything.
The only thing that may have been interpreted as a presumption was the thing about Fox News.?

I will say Galloway took the moral high ground in the hearing, he better hope he is innocent after that.

I havent grilled you Whooda, and I dont think I've presumed anything.
The only thing that may have been interpreted as a presumption was the thing about Fox News.
I was being serious about this, not sarcastic. I simply stated that if Fox or equivalent was the only source that I had seen, then I would have thought that Galloway had been trampled on.

Brand X wrote:

I will say Galloway took the moral high ground in the hearing, he better hope he is innocent after that.

You took the words out of my mouth on that thought. Mr. G has used his 15 minutes of fame and he better hope he's the paragon of virtue he claims because I'm sure there's a horde of tabloiders out there preparing to expose the type of sex scandal that only British MP's do best.

Brand X wrote:

I will say Galloway took the moral high ground in the hearing, he better hope he is innocent after that.

You took the words out of my mouth on that thought. Mr. G has used his 15 minutes of fame and he better hope he's the paragon of virtue he claims because I'm sure there's a horde of tabloiders out there preparing to expose the type of sex scandal that only British MP's do best.

Maybe catch him in bed with an underaged, same-sex, different-species partner?

I'll have to tune in Fox for that one I guess.

BTW, for those of you with the watches, my job beckons again...

Lord Ellpus wrote:

I havent grilled you Whooda, and I dont think I've presumed anything.
The only thing that may have been interpreted as a presumption was the thing about Fox News.
I was being serious about this, not sarcastic. I simply stated that if Fox or equivalent was the only source that I had seen, then I would have thought that Galloway had been trampled on.

Um ... I watched Fox News' coverage of the Galloway appearance, and while not lengthy, I was left with the distinct impression from the Fox reporter that Galloway delivered scathing remarks to the Senators, and was not lead to believe Galloway had been trampled on. Then again, perhaps you watched a different presentation. You may not be aware that there are different programs on Fox News throughout the day, each having their own unique delivery and style. I imagine it's true that Fox did not report the story with evident glee and delight in their voices, which was no doubt evident over on CNN and MSNBC.

Brand X wrote:

I will say Galloway took the moral high ground in the hearing, he better hope he is innocent after that.

You took the words out of my mouth on that thought. Mr. G has used his 15 minutes of fame and he better hope he's the paragon of virtue he claims because I'm sure there's a horde of tabloiders out there preparing to expose the type of sex scandal that only British MP's do best.

Maybe catch him in bed with an underaged, same-sex, different-species partner?

I'll have to tune in Fox for that one I guess.

BTW, for those of you with the watches, my job beckons again...

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1485653,00.html#article_continue

US 'backed illegal Iraqi oil deals'

Report claims blind eye was turned to sanctions busting by American firms

Julian Borger and Jamie Wilson in Washington
Tuesday May 17, 2005
The Guardian

The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.

A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.

The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.

Yesterday's report makes two principal allegations against the Bush administration. Firstly, it found the US treasury failed to take action against a Texas oil company, Bayoil, which facilitated payment of "at least $37m in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime".

The surcharges were a violation of the UN Oil For Food programme, by which Iraq was allowed to sell heavily discounted oil to raise money for food and humanitarian supplies. However, Saddam was allowed to choose which companies were given the highly lucrative oil contracts. Between September 2000 and September 2002 (when the practice was stopped) the regime demanded kickbacks of 10 to 30 US cents a barrel in return for oil allocations.

In its second main finding, the report said the US military and the state department gave a tacit green light for shipments of nearly 8m barrels of oil bought by Jordan, a vital American ally, entirely outside the UN-monitored Oil For Food system. Jordan was permitted to buy some oil directly under strict conditions but these purchases appeared to be under the counter.

The report details a series of efforts by UN monitors to obtain information about Bayoil's oil shipments in 2001 and 2002, and the lack of help provided by the US treasury.

...

I'm sure there's a horde of tabloiders out there preparing to expose the type of sex scandal that only British MP's do best.

Maybe catch him in bed with an underaged, same-sex, different-species partner?

I'll have to tune in Fox for that one I guess.

BTW, for those of you with the watches, my job beckons again...

Gentlemen, or a BrandX lady, we have a little issue that potentially screams HYPOCRITES.

By the way, I should have asked this before, but did you happen to see the full Galloway interview by any chance?

WhoodaThunk wrote:

I'm sure there's a horde of tabloiders out there preparing to expose the type of sex scandal that only British MP's do best.

Maybe catch him in bed with an underaged, same-sex, different-species partner?

I'll have to tune in Fox for that one I guess.

BTW, for those of you with the watches, my job beckons again...

Well, when you have time, could you please give examples (I know, there are already some unanswered question) of sex-scandals, British MP's are best in?

Ticomaya wrote:

Lord Ellpus wrote:

I havent grilled you Whooda, and I dont think I've presumed anything.
The only thing that may have been interpreted as a presumption was the thing about Fox News.
I was being serious about this, not sarcastic. I simply stated that if Fox or equivalent was the only source that I had seen, then I would have thought that Galloway had been trampled on.

Um ... I watched Fox News' coverage of the Galloway appearance, and while not lengthy, I was left with the distinct impression from the Fox reporter that Galloway delivered scathing remarks to the Senators, and was not lead to believe Galloway had been trampled on. Then again, perhaps you watched a different presentation. You may not be aware that there are different programs on Fox News throughout the day, each having their own unique delivery and style. I imagine it's true that Fox did not report the story with evident glee and delight in their voices, which was no doubt evident over on CNN and MSNBC.

Fox News....Midnight here, on the same day as the hearing, so I presume it was about 7pm NY time.
You mean to say that you didnt see any Saddam "gloating" footage?
It was the worst type of propaganda film footage I've seen since watching the old Nazi films that portrayed Jews as rats.
I've got it on tape if you want it. Several of my friends have now watched it and were all of the same mind. So at least if I have gone mad, all my friends are there with me.

Now, nimh:

I know nothing about the man, his politics, values, party affiliation, past behavior: not a whit. I just was stating that his stated views before the Senate, and performance in service of his views, should not logically be dismissed on the basis of any of those things.

And if I simply let this repeated question ride, what presumption will you make?

Understand?

[<mind wanders to cigars, the Oval Office, a short, pretty brunette>

WhoodaThunk wrote:

And if I simply let this repeated question ride, what presumption will you make?

Understand?

Clever, but useless as an analogy.

Ellpus: Asks you a question. Repeatedly.
Whooda: Ignores it. Repeatedly.
Ellpus (estimated): Makes an assumption about what refusal to answer means.

Would be a bad thing, true, but hardly the same as:

Senate: Doesnt ask Galloway any questions. Makes an assumption regardless.


Galloway: Is invitred in after the Senate already widely publicised its assumptions, and answers the question.