George Galloway, the noose awaits...

S

SouthpawGlamour

Slum Mum Peace Corps
The move to suspend the former Labour MP came after the committee censured him for failing to register an interest and "excessive" use of taxpayer-funded facilities for the charity.

It said he should be heavily punished for concealing funding from Saddam Hussein's former regime and for unjustified attacks on the inquiry itself.

:D

Nothing lasts forever
 
George Galloway, the moose awaits...is that his ex wife!!!!!
 
What about the gallows awaiting George Mooseway?

SG gis a link to the committee meeting minutes you took that from, I'd like to read the rest of their minutes?

love

Grim
 
The suspension, which did not require a vote of MPs, sparked a torrent of outrage from Mr Galloway towards his colleagues in the House.

"Being lectured by the current House of Commons on the question of the funding of political campaigns is like being accused of having bad taste by Donald Trump, like being accused of slouching by the Hunchback of Notre Dame," he said.

"None of the parties here, and all three of them are culpable, ever asked the millionaires and billionaires who gave them and lent them money where they got the money from."

Last week the disciplinary panel found there was "strong circumstantial evidence" that Saddam had funded the charity and called Mr Galloway "clearly irresponsible" for not investigating the source of the money.

I'd like to thank SouthpawGlamour for encouraging me to read up more on George Galloway and realise what a great man Mr Galloway is.

Why don't you find out for yourself:

http://www.georgegalloway.com/
 
I'm starting to find it a bit suspicious how he keeps returning to the findings that "He made no personal gain..." Now, I'm sure this is 100% accurate, personally he got nothing. OK! Why go on about it - it looks like through whatever twisting route Sadam Huseins money went into his Anti War campeign..... How MAD is that!:eek::D
 
Bassist-In-A-Tutu said:
I'm starting to find it a bit suspicious how he keeps returning to the findings that "He made no personal gain..." Now, I'm sure this is 100% accurate, personally he got nothing. OK! Why go on about it - it looks like through whatever twisting route Sadam Huseins money went into his Anti War campeign..... How MAD is that!:eek::D
Click to expand...

Please spend some time to research this from a broad range of sources and make your own mind up after gathering the facts. Please find some time to do that. You will find it to be fascinating.
 
Morrissey the 23rd said:
Please spend some time to research this from a broad range of sources and make your own mind up after gathering the facts. Please find some time to do that. You will find it to be fascinating.
Click to expand...

Ok - your on ;)

I'm going to see what I can find out there, give me a couple of days. This is interesting and fun - I've always been scepticle about this guy, but had trouble reconciling that with the fact I support his anti war campeign, amongst other things.

Cool :D
 
Morrissey the 23rd said:
Please spend some time to research this from a broad range of sources and make your own mind up after gathering the facts. Please find some time to do that. You will find it to be fascinating.
Click to expand...

Yes, the evidence against him isn't exactly "damning" once you read up on the actual details. I read some items about Galloway after reading Hitchens' totally unsurprising gloatfest on Slate this morning, and the case isn't as simple as he makes it out to be. The alleged phone call between him and Saddam, for example, is not substantiated.

Even if he had no overt ties to Saddam, Galloway should have looked into the sources of his money futher, but he is absolutely right to point out that other politicians-- across the whole spectrum-- are also lax about investigating the source of their funding. Conflicts of interest or bias are almost always overlooked in the ruling parties. I can think of no greater example than Saudi Arabia and its ties to the Bush family in the United States. Perhaps there's nothing to it-- there probably isn't-- but in any case there was never even a look at the ties between the Bushes and Saudi Arabia, despite the Saudi citizenship of fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers.

That's why you have to laugh at the degree to which pro-war talking heads are sifting over the facts. They are showing themselves to be ten times more scrupulous about their political enemies than they were about the case to go to war made by Blair and Bush. I don't think Galloway comes out of this spotless, but if nothing else he's bringing a double standard to light for those with eyes to see it.

The real lesson here is to support ideas, not politicians.
 
Last edited:
This is the third charity where 'discrepancies' where found, Galloway HAS given back 1700 pounds of disputed expenses in another case and 'auditors' where blamed for 'discrepancies' in yet another case.

Is Galloway really that unlucky, ALL this AND the monies from Saddam, surely not!
 
SouthpawGlamour said:
This is the third charity where 'discrepancies' where found, Galloway HAS given back 1700 pounds of disputed expenses in another case and 'auditors' where blamed for 'discrepancies' in yet another case.

Is Galloway really that unlucky, ALL this AND the monies from Saddam, surely not!
Click to expand...

Agree with you, it doesn't look good...I wouldn't call myself a Galloway supporter, so I'm not saying he's without blame.

However, just as a fun little experiment, what if we all looked at the other side, the pro-war side, with the same kind of healthy skepticism you're showing Galloway?

For instance:

"Given the existence of the PNAC, Bush's desire to invade Iraq immediately after 9/11, our national security interest in oil, the interests within the Bush Administration to go to war so as to profit financially, the need to establish long-term bases in the Middle East, ALL this AND the fact that, once inside Iraq, no WMDs were found...are we to believe this war wasn't sold to the public with lies and exaggerations of the most invidious kind? Surely not!"

Don't mean to start another boring debate about the war, but I did want to mention that your attitude toward Galloway would be FANTASTIC if applied universally. Maybe you do, I dunno, but I'd like to see more of it from everyone.
 
Worm said:
Agree with you, it doesn't look good...I wouldn't call myself a Galloway supporter, so I'm not saying he's without blame.

However, just as a fun little experiment, what if we all looked at the other side, the pro-war side, with the same kind of healthy skepticism you're showing Galloway?

For instance:

"Given the existence of the PNAC, Bush's desire to invade Iraq immediately after 9/11, our national security interest in oil, the interests within the Bush Administration to go to war so as to profit financially, the need to establish long-term bases in the Middle East, ALL this AND the fact that, once inside Iraq, no WMDs were found...are we to believe this war wasn't sold to the public with lies and exaggerations of the most invidious kind? Surely not!"

Don't mean to start another boring debate about the war, but I did want to mention that your attitude toward Galloway would be FANTASTIC if applied universally. Maybe you do, I dunno, but I'd like to see more of it from everyone.
Click to expand...


Errrrmmm..I am anti-war, anti-killing, isn't every sane person? just because I don't like Galloway doesn't make me pro-war. Anti-war is NOT Galloways cause!!!

Bush/Blair invaded Iraq because of the history and the belief they both have in democratisation, anyone can see that.

I apply the same standards to ALL debates, hence the reason I pointed out that the war could not be proved legal or illegal, even by fancy lawyers.
 
SouthpawGlamour said:
Bush/Blair invaded Iraq because of the history and the belief they both have in democratisation, anyone can see that.
Click to expand...

Here in the States the war was not presented as a chance to democratize the Middle East until after the war had begun. Support for the war was secured in the public sphere by about a year and a half of alarmist talk of how Saddam Hussein was part of the Axis of Evil and would, sooner or later, commit an atrocity against Americans on American soil. Democracy in Iraq was certainly a subject, but President Bush championed the war primarily, overwhelmingly, as a pre-emptive act of national self-defense. I'm simply saying that I wish everyone had been as skeptical of the war as you are about Galloway.
 
Worm said:
Here in the States the war was not presented as a chance to democratize the Middle East until after the war had begun. Support for the war was secured in the public sphere by about a year and a half of alarmist talk of how Saddam Hussein was part of the Axis of Evil and would, sooner or later, commit an atrocity against Americans on American soil. Democracy in Iraq was certainly a subject, but President Bush championed the war primarily, overwhelmingly, as a pre-emptive act of national self-defense. I'm simply saying that I wish everyone had been as skeptical of the war as you are about Galloway.
Click to expand...

Ahmen!

I'm no supporter of Galloway (Yet, still reading) but I am of scepicism of the war! If that whole sorry episode were to be subject to the same scrutiny as Galloway has been I think the resluts would turn a few heads!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
'New' George A Romero film review
Replies
0
Views
424
Who Rattled Your Cage
W
nicky wire's legs
  • Poll
The Supermodel Poll
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
3K
gordyboy9
gordyboy9
W
The Tortured Poets Department.
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
goinghome
goinghome
W
Spot The Smiths/Moz Refs
Replies
0
Views
399
Who Rattled Your Cage
W
TheSmiths_1985
The epic banter thread
15 16 17
Replies
329
Views
12K
TheSmiths_1985
TheSmiths_1985
Back
Top Bottom