George Galloway and the US Senate- some choice quotes

[JacktheHat]

News 24

"I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do, and than any member of the British or American governments."

"I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq, and I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies,"

"Have a look at the real oil for food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad when $8.8bn of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch,"

CNN

"I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims, did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11, 2001,"

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong. And 100,000 people have paid with their lives -- 1,600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies, 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever, on a pack of lies."

"Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported."

He said he had met with Saddam "exactly as many times as Donald Rumsfeld has met with him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and give him maps,"

Aljazeera

"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and American governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas."

Reuters

To Senator Norm Coleman:
"Now I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer, you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice."

 

[Jam 99]

hmmmmmmm i see

so hmmmmmmmmmmm

hmmmmmmmmmm

hmmmmmmm
ahhhhhhhhhhhh
what is this

 

[Solid Fro]

And... so?

This is avoiding the fact, which Galloway is trying to do. Galloway got oil vouchers from Saddam and received over 20 million barrels of oil in the UN Oil for Food scandal.

Left-Winger Mired in Controversy

He vehemently opposed UN sanctions on Iraq following the first Iraq war of 1991, and in 1994 visited Baghdad where he was filmed telling Saddam: "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength and your indefatigability."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050512/wl_uk_afp/usunoilfrancebritain_050512100155

Pretty good overview of the whole controversy:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156803,00.html

 

[JacktheHat]

And... so?

This is avoiding the fact, which Galloway is trying to do. Galloway got oil vouchers from Saddam and received over 20 million barrels of oil in the UN Oil for Food scandal.

Left-Winger Mired in Controversy

He vehemently opposed UN sanctions on Iraq following the first Iraq war of 1991, and in 1994 visited Baghdad where he was filmed telling Saddam: "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength and your indefatigability."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050512/wl_uk_afp/usunoilfrancebritain_050512100155

Pretty good overview of the whole controversy:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156803,00.html

So where is the actual proof?

 

[Solid Fro]

You can read the US Senate report here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_05_05_psi_report.pdf

I love the way the Liberal news outlets spin this. Galloway claims Iraqi Oil Victory! Hits US Accusers for Six! Gallway's Furious Defense!



****, you can even watch it here:

http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Detail&HearingID=232

Google is your friend, Jackthehat.

 

[JacktheHat]

You can reas the US Senate report here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_05_05_psi_report.pdf

I love the way the Liberal news outlets spin this. Galloway claims Iraqi Oil Victory! Hits US Accusers for Six! Gallway's Furious Defense!



****, you can even watch it here:

http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Detail&HearingID=232

Google is your friend, Jackthehat.

Yes, I've seen that.

Is that conclusive proof? Reliable information?

Anyway, even if it was true, the quotes I have mentioned were not made in his defence. They were made to highlight the cover up that is going on with regards to the US invasion of Iraq.

 

[Touring Mars]

Let's just hope the US Senate's intellegence on George Galloway (my MP ) is better than their intellegence on WMD's in Iraq....

Galloway is no stranger to controversy, and yet, he puts his money where his mouth is.... show us the proof, otherwise save the allegations for the tabloids. Galloway has already successfully sued for libel against a UK newspaper who printed these allegations, but did not have any proof that they were actually true....

It is a sad day for freedom and for justice when people automatically assume he is guilty of these allegations, simply because he opposed the war. The US Senate had better have their facts right before accusing a member of the British parliament of anything... as this (voluntary) meeting has shown thus far, they do not have any proof that the allegations are true... but the US are quick to judge, because they do not have any intention of giving him a fair hearing... fortunately, Galloway is not afraid to tell them to their face exactly what he has been doing anyway... let's just hope they listen before passing judgement.

 

[Solid Fro]

Let's just hope the US Senate's intelligence on George Galloway (my MP ) is better than their intelligence on WMD's in Iraq....

Let's hope none of us relies on the UN's intelligence either.

 

[Touring Mars]

UN's intelligence.

That's an oxymoron if ever I heard one...

 

[JacktheHat]

Viper Zero, how about commenting on the quotes? Any response or do you accept them all?

 

[Solid Fro]

That's an oxymoron if ever I heard one...

Ha, maybe you're right. 👍

 

[JacktheHat]

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong. And 100,000 people have paid with their lives -- 1,600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies, 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever, on a pack of lies."

And maybe George was right, too?

 

[Danoff]

News 24

"I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do, and than any member of the British or American governments."

"I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq, and I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies,"

"Have a look at the real oil for food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad when $8.8bn of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch,"

CNN

"I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims, did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11, 2001,"

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong. And 100,000 people have paid with their lives -- 1,600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies, 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever, on a pack of lies."

"Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported."

He said he had met with Saddam "exactly as many times as Donald Rumsfeld has met with him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and give him maps,"

Aljazeera

"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and American governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas."

Reuters

To Senator Norm Coleman:
"Now I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer, you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice."

...and the point is? That Galloway is an idiot?

 

[JacktheHat]

...and the point is? That Galloway is an idiot?

How exactly?

 

[Danoff]

How exactly?

Did you read those quotes?

 

[JacktheHat]

Did you read those quotes?

Yes, what about them?

 

[Danoff]

"I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims, did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11, 2001,"

This! It's hilarious. The guy is a moron.

 

[Carl.]

This! It's hilarious. The guy is a moron.

So am I then.

Remove the negations in this quote and I'd be inclined to have exactly the same reaction as you.

Different perspectives I guess.

 

[Danoff]

Different perspectives I guess.

I guess. Or perhaps you just haven't thought about it enough.

What do we know?
We know Iraq had WMD, Saddam used them - hell we might have given it to them. We found some when we went in to Iraq. What we didn't find is stockpiles when we went in to Iraq - we don't know what happened to the ones we knew saddam had.

We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda had connections. Not necessarily strong ones, and not necessarily official ones - but we know that there were connections.
We know that Iraq was not behind 9/11. Everyone knows that, and nobody claimed otherwise.

So here's what we have in response to the guy who says this:

"I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims, did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11, 2001,"

1) You're wrong.
2) You're wrong.
3) Nobody's arguing that.


The guy is a moron, Q.E.D.

 

[Touring Mars]

This! It's hilarious. The guy is a moron.

Eh? So they found WMD's in Iraq then? I missed that one... there may well have been weapons in the past, but his capability and weapons were destroyed in 1991.

So they established a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda as well? I missed that one too...

So they established that Saddam's Baathist regime (which Osama Bin Laden vehemently despised for being un-islamic) backed the attacks on 9/11...? I definitely missed that one...

edit: I see that you concede that no-one is arguing that...so why did the Bush administration go to such lengths to mention Iraq in the same breath as 9/11 as if they were connected, when they clearly were not...?

And, by the way, Galloway did point all of these things out along time before Blair and Bush invaded Iraq... his Respect Coalition organised the biggest demonstrations in British history to show how much the general public in the UK opposed the war...

 

[Carl.]

you just haven't thought about it enough.

I did.

We know Iraq had WMD, Saddam used them

You mean about 15 years ago, right after Desert Storm? agreed, but irrelevant here. What's relevant is whether or not any WMD active program / stocks was still active in Iraq. Your own government reports on the issue either states that it wasn't the case, or at best, that they have no evidence that this is true.

We found some when we went in to Iraq. What we didn't find is stockpiles when we went in to Iraq

Wow. we found some tiny quantities of scattered leftovers. If that is enough, we have on our hand a quite a comprehensive list of countries to invade.

we don't know what happened to the ones we knew saddam had.

So now we knew he still had wmds, right? Then why the hell a government official presented an student thesis (from years ago) to the international community as "evidence" for going to war? I guess all the countries opposed to war were voluntarily closing there eyes on some sort of "concrete evidence" I'm not aware of?

We knew? My ass. We supposed. And we still don't have a shred of meaningful evidence.


Until we get some real proof - that would have been welcomed, actually before going to war, given this was stated as the primary excuse for it all over the place - the whole WMD menace is a pile of poo poo.

Go to North Korea for an actual WMD threat. But wait... is there any sort of incentive besides stopping WMD development and freeing people from one of the worst totalitarian regime in the world there? nah. Fuggedaboutit.

We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda had connections. Not necessarily strong ones, and not necessarily official ones - but we know that there were connections.

Al Quaeda and Saddam were far from being buddies, Osama vehemently criticized Hussein at many occasions in the past. That sort of connection is enough to label a nation as a terrorist threat? There are nations far more tied to Al Quaeda in the region, including our great friends in Saoudi Arabia.

We know that Iraq was not behind 9/11. Everyone knows that, and nobody claimed otherwise.

Then why so much public speeches that were going from 9/11, then on the needed "war on terrror", then on Iraq?

So here's what we have in response to the guy who says this:

1) You're wrong.
2) You're wrong.
3) Nobody's arguing that.


The guy is a moron, Q.E.D.

Peer-review points some flawed conclusion / assertions. see above.

 

[Swift]

Well, I hate the fact that US soldiers are over there fighitng an impossible war. I hate the fact that the government is NOT giving them all the equipment that is needed. I also don't like that families are being seperated for a long time through this. Some never being reunited.

However, Saddam was a threat very similar to Hitler. Saddam wanted more and he tried to get it once. We smacked him down for it, and he's been thinking of ways to get back at us ever since.

While I disaprove of our technique, I do agree that something needed to be done about Saddam.

 

[Danoff]

You mean about 15 years ago, right after Desert Storm? agreed, but irrelevant here. What's relevant is whether or not any WMD active program / stocks was still active in Iraq. Your own government reports on the issue either states that it wasn't the case, or at best, that they have no evidence that this is true.

I don't think you're following me here.

Wow. we found some tiny quantities of scattered leftovers. If that is enough, we have on our hand a quite a comprehensive list of countries to invade.

You kinda jumped around there. Ever consider the fact that we didn't need them to have WMDs at all to justify an invasion?

So now we knew he still had wmds, right? Then why the hell a government official presented an student thesis (from years ago) to the international community as "evidence" for going to war? I guess all the countries opposed to war were voluntarily closing there eyes on some sort of "concrete evidence" I'm not aware of?

I don't know why WMDs were presented as "evidence" for going to war... they weren't necessary. We had plenty of reason without that.

We knew? My ass. We supposed. And we still don't have a shred of meaningful evidence.

...and this justifies your claims that we were wrong about the WMD's? You're not following your own argument here.

Go to North Korea for an actual WMD threat. But wait... is there any sort of incentive besides stopping WMD development and freeing people from one of the worst totalitarian regime in the world there? nah. Fuggedaboutit.

You're voluntarily closing your mind to the reality of the situation about NK. Until you're willing to consider the consequences of your own arguments, you can't have a discussion about them.

Al Quaeda and Saddam were far from being buddies, Osama vehemently criticized Hussein at many occasions in the past. That sort of connection is enough to label a nation as a terrorist threat? There are nations far more tied to Al Quaeda in the region, including our great friends in Saoudi Arabia.

Agreed, there are nations far more tied to Al Qaeda. That doesn't make Galloway correct does it?

Then why so much public speeches that were going from 9/11, then on the needed "war on terrror", then on Iraq?

You didn't pay attention to the speeches.

Peer-review points some flawed conclusion / assertions. see above.

Not really. You kinda bounced around. I stand by my original summary of the quote... wrong, wrong, and nobody is arguing it.

Well, I hate the fact that US soldiers are over there fighitng an impossible war. I hate the fact that the government is NOT giving them all the equipment that is needed. I also don't like that families are being seperated for a long time through this. Some never being reunited.

We're giving them the best equipment any military force has ever had. We're not fighting an impossible war, we're winning a relatively easy war. And those families are separated because one member VOLUNTEERED to help America win its wars.

 

[Swift]

We're giving them the best equipment any military force has ever had. We're not fighting an impossible war, we're winning a relatively easy war. And those families are separated because one member VOLUNTEERED to help America win its wars.

I'm forced to disagree. Our troops haven't always been given the best vehicles and armour they can get.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4079201.stm

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7752483/

I'm just saying that they should've ALWAYS had the best instead of going there, getting beat up and then getting the best.

Also, I know people volunteered for the army. But the fact of the matter is that they have families just like you and I. So why shouldn't feel for them?

 

[Danoff]

I'm forced to disagree. Our troops haven't always been given the best vehicles and armour they can get.

You're not disagreeing. I didn't say they always had the best vehicles and armor they could get. I said they had the best equipment any military force has ever had - and as far as I know, that's true.

They still do not have the best equipment they can get. They will not ever have the best equipment they can get - because America cannot afford to supply each individual soldier with the current state of the art best possible equipment they can have.

To give them the best equipment they can get, we'd have to give each of them a tank or stealth bomber or some sort of new currently-in-development, state-of-the-art futuristic robo suit - only one of which exists and which would cost 100 million per copy.


It is not possible for any nation to provide its soldiers each with copies of the latest greatest technology - the funding does not exist. So to say that our soldiers should have had the best is ludicrous. They have the best any military force has ever had - and they have it without forcing America into bankruptcy.

 

[Carl.]

I don't think you're following me here.

I was about to say the same.

You kinda jumped around there. Ever consider the fact that we didn't need them to have WMDs at all to justify an invasion?

I don't know why WMDs were presented as "evidence" for going to war... they weren't necessary. We had plenty of reason without that.

First you justify this with the "huge" discoveries we made in Iraq, then you just dismiss the whole subject. The initial (hilarious and moronic) point is that it wasn't a valid reason for invading Iraq (and yet was on top of the list).

...and this justifies your claims that we were wrong about the WMD's? You're not following your own argument here.

No you're the one not following. Prove me they actually had WMDs (at the time we invaded) and I'll shut up on this.

You're voluntarily closing your mind to the reality of the situation about NK. Until you're willing to consider the consequences of your own arguments, you can't have a discussion about them.

Perhaps. but then it's about the same with your own arguments for Iraq.

Agreed, there are nations far more tied to Al Qaeda. That doesn't make Galloway correct does it?

The point is wheter or not Iraq had any sort of influencial link on Al Quada. The so-called contact in Iraq doesn't prove anything like it, even less given their mutual stance.

You didn't pay attention to the speeches.

Um. yes I did, and the pretty obvious, rehashed pattern wasn't very difficult to spot.

Not really. You kinda bounced around. I stand by my original summary of the quote... wrong, wrong, and nobody is arguing it.

Again, we are having the same thoughts! (revesed that is)

While I disaprove of our technique, I do agree that something needed to be done about Saddam.

I agree. I just don't see how making a second Israel (the current chaos looks very similar) was the solution for the Iraqis, or the so-called "war on terror".

Speaking of the war on terror, what's going on in Iraq has not improved the situation at all. For example in southern ex-URSS states, wahabi integrism is currently raging, being freely funded by rich organisations all around the Persian Gulf, in "friendly" nations. (they actually pay people to convert them to wahabism). Iraq was lead by a despotic leader, everyone agrees with that, but there are far worse nations in terms of spreading religious extremism and sponsoring terrorism.

("lunatic conspiracy theory" warning) So it's hard for me to fully dismiss other motives for invading Iraq. Even more so when I look at how well the oil and military industries did in the last few years.

 

[Swift]

You're not disagreeing. I didn't say they always had the best vehicles and armor they could get. I said they had the best equipment any military force has ever had - and as far as I know, that's true.

They still do not have the best equipment they can get. They will not ever have the best equipment they can get - because America cannot afford to supply each individual soldier with the current state of the art best possible equipment they can have.

It is not possible for any nation to provide its soldiers each with copies of the latest greatest technology - the funding does not exist. So to say that our soldiers should have had the best is ludicrous. They have the best any military force has ever had - and they have it without forcing America into bankruptcy.

Hmmm...Well, the things like not having suffecient armour on trucks and humvees really get me upset. I'm not talking super technology here. Just the best of what we have out there to protect our soldiers. I'm sure you'd agree with that right?

 

[ledhed]

Hmmm...Well, the things like not having suffecient armour on trucks and humvees really get me upset. I'm not talking super technology here. Just the best of what we have out there to protect our soldiers. I'm sure you'd agree with that right?

our army was never expected to be an occupying power or a police force . nor was it intended to fight battles behind the lines against an insurgency . humvees replaced jeeps . they were never intended to be armored . the whole story is a bunch of bull spread by uninformed lackeys we do have some armored hummers that we pressed into service but the rest had to be quickly assembled using kits or jury riggged on site. production capacity is not what it used to be so you have to make do with what you have while we catch up.
The flip side is we were caught with our ass's in the air and should have been prepared . The knuckleheads making decisions based on faulty intell and then finding themselves in the stew because they were not prepared need to find new jobs.

 

[Solid Fro]

ledhed is right. We talked about this before that the HMMWV was never designed to have armor. To blame the US for not having armor on HMMWV is ridiculous.

This is why we have Stryker and Bradley armored vehicles.

 

[JacktheHat]

ledhed is right. We talked about this before that the HMMWV was never designed to have armor. To blame the US for not having armor on HMMWV is ridiculous.

But I don't think it's wrong to blame the US for not being fully prepared for a war they initiated.

However, Saddam was a threat very similar to Hitler.

You can't compare Saddam to Hitler and there is no way you can compare WWII to the current conflict in Iraq, or did I miss the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Iran, Syria etc.