In the land of the moron the self aggrandising twat is king...
The man is a giant asshat but free speech is free speech & should be protected at all costs...

**** me...sure he was punted in 03 from Labour, but it was not until 07 that finally got the boot from the Commons for these undisclosed dealings.

The full report can be found via the link below, but how this Commons committee could draw meaningful conclusions when by their own admission they "did not examine the bank account of Galloway's former wife or their joint account" while doing so is ridiculous.

If they did not have the power to fully investigate then the Govt should have ensured that those that could have, did so. Anyway:

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../909/90902.htm

Seems to me those aspects pasted into my earlier post remain unanswered. The Govt of the day failed to ensure that all this was properly investigated, plain and simple....why WTFK.

As for what was presented to the 2005 US Senate hearing....you spin it how you want....Guess which version I will believe until the matter is fully disclosed by Galloway or others. Certainly not yours.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...rt-512467.html

Gorgeous Galloway incapable of lying...seems that many others see things differently, including this fella:

http://www.johannhari.com/2004/12/06...in-blatant-lie

Kenny was wrong to ban this loser.....the days ahead will be interesting.

Ah well.......

If an idiot like George Galloway can make the US Senate look like fools, what does that say about US Senators?

Sure, you believe your revisionist version of events. The fact is that if there was any evidence the UK and US governments of the day would have pursued it for all that it was worth. They didn't because they had none. It wasn't because the labour party were doing him a favour, which only somebody with an agenda would believe.

Revisionist; get real.

I would say this whole sordid saga remains an unwritten chapter. Until a real investigation is conducted with a criminal trail if need be...that's the way it is in my book.

However, if elements of his conduct /dealings over Iraq in particular ever ended up in criminal court room, I don't think the Galloway camp would be calling Oliver Thorne with respect to supposedly incriminating Saddam regime documents found in a bombed-out building:

"The issue of whether the documents were genuine was likewise not at issue at the trial. However, it later transpired that the expert hired by Galloway's lawyers, a forensic expert named Oliver Thorne, said "In my opinion the evidence found fully supports that the vast majority of the submitted documents are authentic."[103] He added "It should be noted that I am unable to comment on the veracity of the information within the disputed Telegraph documents, whether or not they are authentic."

You will be telling me next that Uday Hussain was actually a Saint not a murderous thug....he was certainly already that and more when George came on the scene, although that did not seem to bother Galloway although I am sure he was briefed. A link to one of their encounters:

http://www.pakistan.tv/videos-george...-uday-hussein-[gRGFLCYr-fo].cfm

Anyway, this fella sums things up quite well:

George Galloway: an odd champion of free speech
by Michael Petrou on Friday, March 27, 2009

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/03/27/g...f-free-speech/

"But it’s worth remembering the man behind the charm. He reacts to unpleasant questions from journalists with belligerence and insults. He praised Saddam Hussein. And he once described the disappearance of the Soviet Union – one of the most murderous regimes in history – as “the biggest disaster of my life.” I’m confident that Canadians would tire of Galloway once they got to know him."

I for one hope that one day we will find out the truth.....George is reported to have said to Uday, "that he was with him to the end".....we know how that finished....but no George though....

As I said, ah well.

+1

I dont much agree with him, but he is one of very few politicians I can think of who stands by his principals and is able to defend them eloquently. I respect him for that.

Plus his performance in the US senate was a treat, and he has a way of getting under the skin of people I like even less

No one should be banned for speakign their mind, freedom of speach is at its most important when people are saying things you dont like or dont want to hear, and the pretence that hes raising money for terrorist organisations is derisable.

From the days in the early 80s when he used his position on the city council to twin our hometown (Dundee) with Nablus in Palestine, he has always been one for the grand inflammatory gesture.

He is a very skilled debater and orator, and he can easily outbluster anybody, rendering their arguments ineffective, regardless of the rights or wrongs of his own position.

Given that a very large proportion of politicians are slimy, professional liars, eager to fill their pockets at taxpayers expense, is George any worse than most of them? There is a need for politicians who will challenge the party line, who are not afraid of public ridicule when they speak their mind.

This is very naive. If there was real evidence he absolutely would have been prosecuted - he was nothing but a thorn in the side of the UK government at the time.

Still, a nice smear campaign was all that was required to defuse the harm he could do (if you remember, his anti war stance was the majority opinion in the UK). No need to fabricate court level evidence, just enough to castrate him as a political force (which was the actual end result). You think this wouldn't happen? The authorities would never stoop to this? Well, Saddam might not have been a saint, but you forget that the government completely invented the evidence about WMD's and Saddams ability to deploy them in 45 minutes (well, if you are going to lie, lie big).

You should stop googling opinion and speculation on the internet that matches your own world view and start looking at the broader picture of who gains and who loses from these allegations and the subsequent actions taken. Motivations are usually clearer when you do this.

And also, please stop conflating my defence of Galloway from lies with support for either him, his opinions, or Saddam (which you seemed to imply for some reason). He's a publicity seeking attention whore and Saddam was a brutal, albeit WMD'less, dictator.

[QUOTE=Alan2005;8894996]This is very naive. If there was real evidence he absolutely would have been prosecuted) -

So why no prosecutions in the case of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi (lockerbie) ? there seems to me to be 'evidence' that he hasn't snuffed it yet, after a year of being released. Doesn't it go to say that even with 'evidence' people don't always get prosecuted?

I know this is a different subject entirely but still you have to remember there are things happening out there were there is evidence and it doesn't always lead to prosecution.

(can't wait to get ripped apart from the clique now for posting)

[QUOTE=greentea3;8895183] And OJ Simpson got off when the glove supposedly didn't fit.

You've lost me? I thought this was about Galloway? What does the Locerbie fellow have to do with anything?

Incidently, while he may not be dead yet, hes hardly living the high life and I for one wouldnt swap shoes with him!

Who, in the name of all that's holy, do you think is protecting him!?
He is universally detested by the British Political classes...

Someone being an enormous prick doesn't mean they have any influence, the bloated hydra of US interested parties laughably called him out & failed to prove a single accusation...

Erm, he was prosecuted

I never said that!!! I hate it when quotes get buggered up.

Bloody quotes. All fixed