anthonyqkiernan
|
Re: Galloway actually wanted the oil
May 13, 2005, 11:38
|
|
I've got this horrible image of him being clapped in irons as soon as he sets foot on american soil. Then all the conspiracy theorists will tell us they told us so - "one call from Tony 'Dubya, I got a problem...'"
|
Wiggy
|
Re: Galloway actually wanted the oil
May 13, 2005, 12:08
|
A long holiday in Cuba awaits?
Or a mysterious suicide in the English countryside?
Nah, I think they'd rather keep him as some kind of Aunt Sally.
|
Popel Vooje
|
Re: Galloway actually wanted the oil
May 13, 2005, 18:51
|
Ah, I'm not saying I want the guy lynched, or even that I necessarily think he's guilty. Just that I'm no more inclined to trust him than any other glory-seeking politician really (which is pretty much all of them) just because I agree with his opinions on the war.
On the anti-war demonstation that attracted half a million people two years back, I listened to his speeches and I have to say he was TOTALLY upstaged in terms of both charisma and the strength of his arguments by Tony Benn (who then blew his cred somewhat by going on to give Saddam a sympathetic, even sycophantic interview. But again, that's politics.).
|
Merrick
|
Re: Galloway actually wanted the oil
May 14, 2005, 11:52
|
I'm no fan of Galloway. I find the idea of this man insisting that he 'cannot survive on less than £150,000 a year' ludicrous, and offensive coming from a supposed socialist representing one of the poorest electorates in Britain.
He is a manic self-publicist and egotist.
And still morally he's head and shoulders above most of his parliamentary colleagues.
The oil allegations are old hat that he's successfully rebutted in court.
Guardian journalist Roy Greenslade - himself succesfully sued for libel by Galloway - wrote a really good article yesterday
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1483073,00.html?79%3A+Uk+latest
He explains that most politicians are nice to the journailsts off mic and play the game. Galloway is the same all the time. That's integrity of a sort. It also means he's panned and smeared by every quarter of the media.
|
cancer boy
|
Re: Galloway actually wanted the oil
May 14, 2005, 20:16
|
> The oil allegations are old hat that he's successfully rebutted in court.
That's not entirely accurate if you're referring to the Daily Telegraph case rather than the previous Christian Science Monitor one on the same matter. He got £150,000 in damages (the rest of the £1.5M figure in the headlines presumably being Bentleys all round for his legal team) but his action didn't question in court the authenticity of the Telegraph's source documents; unlike the ones in the older case, as far as I know they passed expert examination. The suit rested on the original story being considered insufficiently neutral in the way the contents of the documents were framed in the article. The Telegraph is appealing and due to recent Strasbourg rulings on required standards of journalistic objectivity, and possibly flawed summing up in the original case they're in with a shout. Either way it keeps the tills ringing at the inns of court.
|
Wiggy
|
Re: Galloway actually wanted the oil
May 16, 2005, 09:14
|
Ah, Tony Benn is God. Although in the past the burden of collective responsibility has made him appear a hypocrite.
As for the rest - well I wouldn't completely trust any of 'em, but I still reckon Galloway has been consistent for many years (long before most people knew who Saddam was) in his reading of the middle eastern political situation and in his domestic political outlook.
I'm going to be pretty pissed off if he turns out a liar.
|
Wiggy
|
Re: Galloway actually wanted the oil
May 16, 2005, 15:15
|
Why, do you know something we don't?
What's he done with all the money? There are only so many Armani suits one politician can buy.
|
Wiggy
|
Re: Galloway actually wanted the oil
May 16, 2005, 15:17
|
|
....Although I'm sure there's a well made frame with his name on it.
|
Merrick
|
Re: Galloway actually wanted the oil
May 16, 2005, 19:23
|
Whether he's taken money or not I - and indeed lemon - don't know, and anyone giving a definite opinion merely reveals their own prejudices.
However, he has done a lot with money. His house in Portugal, his claim of being 'unable to survive on less than £150,000 a year' (which made the Socialist Worker's Party/Respect drop plans to link the wages of lowest and highest workers in order to prevent fatcat profiteering).
|
Wiggy
|
Re: Galloway actually wanted the oil
May 16, 2005, 20:32
|
Fair point Merrick, we all have prejudices I suppose and I'm happy to reveal mine. I suppose Lemon calling GG "..a bit of a cunt" amounts to the same.
I'm under no illusions about the man - I said earlier that he reminds me of Derek Hatton (surely a bad thing) and he has the ego to match his dress sense. And I am certainly no friend of his new bedfellows the SWP, but there are plenty more money grabbing, yuppie carpet baggers in "new" labour though, and they have effectively taken the choice out of British politics.
I don't think he took the cash - I might be wrong. I also think that there are plenty of people out to get him for fairly obvious reasons. I also think he has been consistent over a long period of time, which is unusual in politicians.
I do have prejudices, just as you do, but I reckon I have tried to stay within the realms of considered opinion. And like I say, I'm prepared to be proved wrong - but Galloway has been right about a lot of things.
|
