Ext User(Well Done)
04-12-2006, 11:03 AM
Ken McDonald <McdonaldK@beosystems.org> wrote:
>Well Done WellDone@WellHoned.com said:
>> Galloway is a very peculiar species... he's a secular Islamist.
>> That must create SUCH a conflict in his own alleged mind.
>>
>More right wing gibberish from the resident loon.
>
Galloway is a hate filled Islamist apologist.
Ken McDonald is a tool who thinks Galloway is right on.
The hard left have gone insane. The proof is in their support of the
words coming from such comical liars as Galloway.
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
Ext User(seon ferguson)
05-12-2006, 05:43 PM
"Well Done" <WellDone@WellHoned.com> wrote in message
news:crj6n2te7oruek4qt1l7sp1t0h9fgvbdbd@4ax.com...
> Ken McDonald <McdonaldK@beosystems.org> wrote:
>>Well Done WellDone@WellHoned.com said:
>>> Galloway is a very peculiar species... he's a secular Islamist.
>>> That must create SUCH a conflict in his own alleged mind.
>>>
>>More right wing gibberish from the resident loon.
>>
> Galloway is a hate filled Islamist apologist.
> Ken McDonald is a tool who thinks Galloway is right on.
> The hard left have gone insane. The proof is in their support of the
> words coming from such comical liars as Galloway.
> --
> ): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
> (: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
whoever posted this original message is a filthy lying scum bag. You have no
proof you just dont like what he says so you make up lies about him. You are
pure scum and should be ashamed of yourself.
Ext User(David Halpern)
05-12-2006, 05:53 PM
"seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:45751126$0$28928$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Well Done" <WellDone@WellHoned.com> wrote in message
> news:crj6n2te7oruek4qt1l7sp1t0h9fgvbdbd@4ax.com...
>> Ken McDonald <McdonaldK@beosystems.org> wrote:
>>>Well Done WellDone@WellHoned.com said:
>>>> Galloway is a very peculiar species... he's a secular Islamist.
>>>> That must create SUCH a conflict in his own alleged mind.
>>>>
>>>More right wing gibberish from the resident loon.
>>>
>> Galloway is a hate filled Islamist apologist.
>> Ken McDonald is a tool who thinks Galloway is right on.
>> The hard left have gone insane. The proof is in their support of the
>> words coming from such comical liars as Galloway.
>> --
>> ): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
>> (: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
>
> whoever posted this original message is a filthy lying scum bag. You have
> no proof you just dont like what he says so you make up lies about him.
> You are pure scum and should be ashamed of yourself.
>
Christopher Hitchens tends to agree the poster's views on Galloway.
Maybe he isn't an Islamist but he sure is an asshole.
"Calling Galloway's Bluff The Senate uncovers a smoking gun.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2005, at 3:59 PM ET
Just before my last exchange with George Galloway, which occurred on the set
of Bill Maher's show in Los Angeles in mid-September, I was approached by a
representative of the program and asked if I planned to repeat my challenge
to Galloway on air. That challenge-would he sign an affidavit saying that he
had never discussed Oil-for-Food monies with Tariq Aziz?-I had already made
on a public stage in New York. Maher's producers had been asked, obviously
by a nervous Galloway, to find out whether I had brought such an affidavit
along with me. I replied that this was not necessary, since his public
denial to me was on the record and had been broadcast, and since it further
confirmed the apparent perjury that he had committed in front of the U.S.
Senate on May 17, 2005. I added that I wanted no further contact with
Galloway until I could have the opportunity of reviewing his prison diaries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That day has now been brought measurably closer by the publication of the
report of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. This
report, which comes with a vast archive of supporting material, was
embargoed until 10 p.m. Monday and contains the "smoking gun" evidence that
Galloway, along with his wife and his chief business associate, were
consistent profiteers from Saddam Hussein's regime and its criminal
exploitation of the "Oil for Food" program. In particular:
1) Between 1999 and 2003, Galloway personally solicited and received eight
oil "allocations" totaling 23 million barrels, which went either to him or
to a politicized "charity" of his named the Mariam Appeal.
2) In connection with just one of these allocations, Galloway's wife,
Amineh Abu-Zayyad, received about $150,000 directly.
3) A minimum of $446,000 was directed to the Mariam Appeal, which
campaigned against the very sanctions from which it was secretly benefiting.
4) Through the connections established by the Galloway and "Mariam"
allocations, the Saddam Hussein regime was enabled to reap $1,642,000 in
kickbacks or "surcharge" payments.
(For a highly readable explanation of how the Oil-for-Food racket actually
worked, see the Adobe Acrobat file on the site www.hitchensweb.com prepared
by my brilliant comrade Michael Weiss and distributed as a leaflet outside
the debate in New York.)
These and other findings by the subcommittee, which appear to demonstrate
beyond doubt that Galloway lied under oath, are supported by one witness in
particular whose name will cause pain in the Galloway camp. This is Tariq
Aziz, longtime henchman of Saddam Hussein and at different times the foreign
minister and deputy prime minister of the Baathist dictatorship. Galloway
has often referred in moist terms to his friend Aziz, and now this is his
reward. I do not think-in case anyone tries such an innuendo-that there is
the smallest possibility that Aziz's testimony was coerced. For one thing,
he was confronted by Senate investigators who already knew a great deal of
the story and who possessed authenticated documents from Iraqi ministries.
For another, he continues, through his lawyers, to deny what is also
certainly true, namely that he personally offered a $2 million bribe to Rolf
Ekeus, then the head of the U.N. weapons inspectors.
The critical person in Galloway's fetid relationship with Saddam's regime
was a Jordanian "businessman" named Fawaz Zureikat, who was involved in a
vast range of middleman activities in Baghdad and is the chairman of Middle
East Advanced Semiconductor Inc. It was never believable, as Galloway used
to claim, that he could have been so uninformed about Zureikat's activities
in breaching the U.N. oil embargo. This most probably means that what we now
know is a fraction of what there is to be known. But what has been
established is breathtaking enough. A member of the British Parliament was
in receipt of serious money originating from a homicidal dictatorship. That
money was supposed to have been used to ameliorate the suffering of Iraqis
living under sanctions. It was instead diverted to the purposes of enriching
Saddam's toadies and of helping them propagandize in favor of the regime
whose crimes and aggressions had necessitated the sanctions and created the
suffering in the first place. This is something more than mere "corruption."
It is the cynical theft of food and medicine from the desperate to pay for
the palaces of a psychopath.
Taken together with the scandal surrounding Benon Sevan, the U.N. official
responsible for "running" the program, and with the recent arrest of
Ambassador Jean-Bernard Mérimée (France's former U.N. envoy) in Paris, and
with other evidence about pointing to big bribes paid to French and Russian
politicians like Charles Pasqua and Vladimir Zhirinovsky, what we are
looking at is a well-organized Baathist attempt to buy or influence the
member states of the U.N. Security Council. One wonders how high this
investigation will reach and how much it will eventually explain.
For George Galloway, however, the war would seem to be over. The evidence
presented suggests that he lied in court when he sued the Daily Telegraph in
London over similar allegations (and collected money for that, too). It
suggests that he lied to the Senate under oath. And it suggests that he made
a deceptive statement in the register of interests held by members of the
British House of Commons. All in all, a bad week for him, especially coming
as it does on the heels of the U.N. report on the murder of Rafik Hariri,
which appears to pin the convict's badge on senior members of the Assad
despotism in Damascus, Galloway's default patron after he lost his main ally
in Baghdad.
Yet this is the man who received wall-to-wall good press for insulting the
Senate subcommittee in May, and who was later the subject of a fawning puff
piece in the New York Times, and who was lionized by the anti-war movement
when he came on a mendacious and demagogic tour of the country last month. I
wonder if any of those who furnished him a platform will now have the grace
to admit that they were hosting a man who is not just a pimp for fascism but
one of its prostitutes as well."
Ext User(seon ferguson)
05-12-2006, 07:13 PM
> Christopher Hitchens tends to agree the poster's views on Galloway.
>
Oh Christopher Hitchens says its true so it must be true.
Despite the fact that all of the lies printed about Galloway were proven to
be lies and even if he did talk to Saddam Donald rumsfeld and other neocon's
sold weapons to him while he was murdering innocent Iraqi's and Galloway
opposed Saddam then.