Did anyone see UK MP George Galloway...

[Lucius]

**POLITICS**

 

If there ever was a can of whoop ass opened before those senators, it was by Galloway. A truely well spoken, anti-war, pissed off Scotsman defending slander caused by the US Senate.

 

Here's a link where you can read and also see the hearing on webcast: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4553601.stm

 

It's fairly long, but if you skip the initial 6 minutes of introduction (which I didn't, mind you) it'll get interesting rather quickly.

 

Enjoy!

[draakh_kimera]

Well, he kind of lost it towards the end, but as far as the first half goes, all I've got to say is: BBUURRRRRRRNN!

[Lucius]

In his defence, the senators question was rather rethorical, and he just didn't want to say what the senator wanted him to say.

 

But yeah, burnage indeed!

[Kaftan Barlast]

summary:

 

Coleman(or whoever it is, since you cant see anyone besides Galloway) first takes a 15min barrage of critiscism about the wrongdoings of certain parts of the US goverment AND acknowledges that the documents used to incriminate Galloway were false, but ignores it completely and just sits for the remainder of the time trying to coax Galloway into condemning alleged kickbaks from bussinessman Zureikat to Saddam- so that he in turn can say to Galloway "you accepted the money of a man who's bussiness methods you condemn". But his problem is that Galloway refuses to swallow the bait. In the end, Coleman just says it himself. Galloway accpeted money for his childrens aid fund from Zureikat who may have aquired some other money by breaking UN sanction rules.

 

 

Its refreshing to see a man stand up for what he belives in and deliver just critiscism right to the face of his opponent. Its sad that the opponent can just brush away that critiscism and go on like nothing happened.

 

 

The sole purpouse of the US instigated sanctions that cost thousands of Iraqi civilian lives was to ensure that Saddam Hussein stayed in power so that the economic status quo of the middle east was preserved. Do we question Bush sr.? Clinton? Bush jr.? Nope.

[Lucius]

Yeah I thought it was quite refreshing as well, and I see it bothered you too that Sen. Coleman just ignores Galloways entire speech and just moves on. I mean, what arrogance! But at any rate, I think his point came through as all major US TV networks was broadcasting this live, despite the lack of a decent rebuttal by Coleman. In fact, it just makes him stand out as the loser even more.

[Walsingham]

Galloway did indeed do an excellent job of whupping the senators. But all that tells you is how much better training the house of Commons is for debate than the Senate.

 

George Galloway is not a concerned respectful defender of human rights or anything. You should check your heroes before you sing their praises. Some of us with longer memories recall that Galloway visited Saddam Hussein when he was in power and said he admired him. The same man who fought the war also fought sanctions - effectively meaning a 'do nothing to Saddam' stance. If you look at his history you will see a relentless opportunist with a natural talent for politics and an enjoyment of verbal bullying.

[Lucius]

I've heard of his past, yes, but that doesn't change the 30 or so minutes of glee I experienced in this hearing.

[metadigital]

Galloway did indeed do an excellent job of whupping the senators. But all that tells you is how much better training the house of Commons is for debate than the Senate.

 

George Galloway is not a concerned respectful defender of human rights or anything. You should check your heroes before you sing their praises. Some of us with longer memories recall that Galloway visited Saddam Hussein when he was in power and said he admired him. The same man who fought the war also fought sanctions - effectively meaning a 'do nothing to Saddam' stance. If you look at his history you will see a relentless opportunist with a natural talent for politics and an enjoyment of verbal bullying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think the House of Commons can take all the credit for Galloway's rhetorical abilities. There are far more speakers who are just inept.

 

He is the epitamy of an opportunist. I wonder if Gordon Brown (current Chancellor of the Exchequer -- that's the Treasurer to you people over the Atlantic -- and expected next leader of the Labour party and therefore Prime Minister) will invite Galloway back into the Labour party?

[Walsingham]

I've heard of his past, yes, but that doesn't change the 30 or so minutes of glee I experienced in this hearing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:D You got me there. It was pretty cool, for all that!

 

 

~

 

I don't think he will be invited back. He got chucked out for encouraging mutiny among the troops during war. Which I think is officially high treason and one of our few capital crimes. The only reason I think they didn't do it is that he would get round it and be still more strong as a 'heroic martyr'.

 

In any case I do think it's only a matter of time before he gets caught out on something.

[Cantousent]

Galloway, the future face of UK politics? Probably not. It would be funny if he were, though. It's refreshing to see someone so wrong, so completely self-serving being praised by people who obviously don't understand his character.

 

...And the ability to shout down your oponent is a long admired rhetorical device. The mark of a true statesman, however, it is not.

[Lucius]

I can understand why you didn't like it Eldar, the truth does hurt doesn't it? However, to me, he was a nessecary evil. :D

[Walsingham]

I can understand why you didn't like it Eldar, the truth does hurt doesn't it? However, to me, he was a nessecary evil.  :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You mean it's OK to go along with a rotten politician if he is arguing for the stuff you want? Like GW Bush?

 

*grins, then ducks hurled antelope*

[Lucius]

You got me there, if anything, he's our GW... if only for 30 minutes. :D

[Yann]

i'm not a fan of galloway but anything that makes an american senator look stupid is ok with me

[Atomic Space Vixen]

It's refreshing to see someone so wrong, so completely self-serving being praised by people who obviously don't understand his character.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Refreshing? The world got to watch this happen just this past U.S. presidential election just as they were voting for the guy who was wrong, self-serving, and lacking in character.

[Cantousent]

If it were truth, it would hurt. As it is, Galloway's remarks will not be long remembered.

 

George Bush may be wrong and he might lack in character, but I doubt he's self-serving. There is no self motivated reason for the political stances he takes. He was independently wealthy before he took office and he's endured slanderous comments every day of his presidency. Bush is no more or less self-serving than Clinton or any other president, the majority of whom truly believed that they were doing what was necessary for the United States.

 

You can argue that George Bush was wrong, and that's certainly an area for legitimate debate. To suggest that he's just a political opportunist seems a bit hollow to me. Galloway, from what I can discern of politics in the United Kingdom is clearly a man with nothing but his own interests at heart. I suppose you might want to portray Galloway as a man of strong convictions, and I respect your right to do so. You are clearly wrong. You are more than welcome to level the same charge at me.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

It's a bit like a Nazi going off on one at Nuremburg...

[Darth Flatus]

He speaks like that to everyone i guess its a novelty to americans.

 

Its grating after a short while. His reaction to jeremy paxman on election night was hilarious and really makes him out to be rude arrogant and incapable of taking any criticism. Also single issue politics is dumb.

[SteveThaiBinh]

He speaks like that to everyone i guess its a novelty to americans.

 

Its grating after a short while. His reaction to jeremy paxman on election night was hilarious and really makes him out to be rude arrogant and incapable of taking any criticism. Also single issue politics is dumb.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you're interested in seeing this, here it is (click the video link):

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vot...log/4519553.stm

 

Very entertaining, I think.

[Darth Flatus]

Good work steve!! :D

[Lucius]

Hehe, entertaining indeed. But this guy Paxman is way outta line, I think. They both behave silly in this interview.

[metadigital]

Hehe, entertaining indeed. But this guy Paxman is way outta line, I think. They both behave silly in this interview.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paxman is a legend in his own time; he brooks no fillibustering form politicians who are schooled in the art of answering the question you wanted the interviewer to ask, rather than the one they asked (a political philosophy that surfaced in the 80s).

 

He will flat-out ask the same simple question repeatedly, to make it quite clear that the politician is deliberately avoiding the question "I'll ask again ...", "I'll ask one more time ...". Necessarily his attitude to those elected representatives has more often than not turned into a sneer, as he regards them with the same contempt that they have for democracy and the principle of holding politicians to account.

[Darth Flatus]

His critics baffle me....

[Lucius]

He may be good, I wouldn't know, but I thought he was downright rude in this interview. I mean, what's the point of a rude rethorical question anyway? I don't know the details behind his election, I read the comments by Brits on the BBC link and they were mixed, seems there's more speculation than actual truth to this "racial stirr" claim.

 

Edit: This might be normal in the UK, just not used to it since interviewers behaving like this here would be totally unheard off. ^_^

[SteveThaiBinh]

He will flat-out ask the same simple question repeatedly...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you threaten to overrule him?

 

Although that was fun to watch, no, it wasn't Paxman at his best. Paxman at his best is very penetrating, and he is good at exposing the inconsistencies in politicians' positions. A weak government minister who's been trotted out to repeat a line that he doesn't really understand will quickly be demolished.

 

There was criticism in the last election in the UK that the people's lack of trust in politicians is exacerbated by this aggressive style of media interview, but I think it's a vital part of a healthy democracy. If you watch the US president being interviewed by a journalist, it reminds me of Robert Maxwell interviewing Eastern European leaders: "Mr. Ceaucescu, your people love you as never before..."