Lugia
|
Re: Senate Committee hearing
May 18, 2005, 18:47
|
It seemed to get its best coverage via NPR. The mainstreamers touched on it in ways that skewed things to keep Galloway looking like a nut-job/villain, but NPR aired some of the verbatim exchanges, including his calling the investigation the 'mother of all smokescreens', engineered to distract the public from the USA's own problems in/with Iraq, both before and after Saddam. He had some very good albeit nasty points to make, and the senators seemed rather desperate to get him done and off the mike while trying to make him look as bad as they could...which they didn't seem to succeed well at doing.
So if you were listening to the 'real news' over here, you got a good look at the real dynamics of the story. But if you got it from the TV outlets, etc, it was more like "Wacky Brit pol screeches at righteous Americans".
|
Sootickle
|
Re: Senate Committee hearing
May 18, 2005, 22:24
|
I wonder if the USA would have raised this if George had not be elected? Is the labour government in collusion with the USA to discredit George.
Even if George is guilty of something, just remember that both the UK and US governments took us to war on a lie.
|
vince
|
Re: Senate Committee hearing
May 19, 2005, 04:45
|
Was indeed. This morning at work everyone is asking me who "That dude Galloway" is......so if raising his profile was on his agenda, he's succeeded. Surprisingly, many here agree with his comments & were happy that someone had the courage of their conviction & stood up to the senate.
News coverage tried to portray him as 'a trouble maker' before the hearings & afterwards were dressing the whole thing up as the basic difference between UK & US politics (ie, in the UK they're all thugs who shout a lot of obscenties to each other & in the US they're all gentlemen who wouldn't dream of shouting....)
In short, GG made his point. Like him or loathe him, he did what he set out to do. He IS a showboater, of that there's no doubt but it is refreshing to see someone stand up for their beliefs for once. I just hope that he is telling the truth are he's going to look very silly indeed.
|
Wiggy
|
Re: Senate Committee hearing
May 19, 2005, 09:29
|
|
Looking at who and what he is up against, and his very long and consistent record on Middle Eastern politics (going back long before the first Gulf War) it shouldn't be too hard for him to justifiably claim "the moral high ground" - it's more of a mole hill really.
|
Wiggy
|
Re: Senate Committee hearing
May 19, 2005, 09:43
|
|
Coverage of GG over here is usually rather "skewed" as well.
|
Wiggy
|
Re: Senate Committee hearing
May 19, 2005, 09:45
|
|
...having said that, I was disappointed with his crass treatment of Chris Hitchins before the hearing. I do like Hitch.
|
Leonard
|
Re: Senate Committee hearing
May 19, 2005, 10:52
|
He is a total opportunist and I've never believed he actually meant anything he campaigned about. I've met him a couple of times, I really dont like him. I myself am to the extreme left of Trotsky, I'm not a stalinist, which Galloway is. Well, he is sometimes, sometimes he isnt. Anyway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway As you can see the Iraq oil scandal he's currently involved in isnt the first time his cashflow has been questioned. As for standing up for his beliefs...
'According to "They Work For You.com" (http://www.theyworkforyou.com), as of May 6th, 2005*, George Galloway had:
* Spoken in 0 debates in the last year — tied for last, out of 659 MPs.
* Asked 0 written questions in the last year — in a large multi-way tie for last, out of 659 MPs.
* Attended 3% of votes in parliament — 649th out of 657 MPs.
* In the 1997–2001 parliament Galloway voted against the majority of his party in 5 votes out of 665 (0.8%), and in the following Parliament prior to his expulsion from Labour, did so in 27 votes out of 209 (12.9%).
'
He is an untrustworthy, self interested, knob.
|
Wiggy
|
Re: Senate Committee hearing
May 19, 2005, 11:10
|
Stalinist? Is that why he grew that tache?
Have you been reading/writing that "respectwatch" blog Leonard?
Seeing as you are so far to the left of Trotsky do you really care to what extent GG is engaging in the parliamentary process?
The trouble with the far left has always been that when you get more than three in a room together we have to have a schism!
|
Leonard
|
Re: Senate Committee hearing
May 19, 2005, 13:03
|
heh, u r funny wiggy. Sorry, I'm actually a nihilist, just like GG I lie a lot about politics.
What I was trying to say is I have more sympathy with socialist/communist views than most without going into a full critical deconstruction of my personal political stance. Basically, it was a throw away comment to say I'm no tory, Liberal or new labour prick but... you see what I mean. I mean just saying I'm a nihilist doesnt really cut it, and doesnt put across that I understand the politic per se does it ?
And no, I don't write any blog. I've always hated sectariana. Sorry to prod you out of your box. Kindly go back to your narrow minded the fuckers are all the same commie burning and disregard me, I'm not important.
|
Leonard
|
To avoid any confusion
May 19, 2005, 13:15
|
|
I came, I posted, I got insulted by someone who wanted to throw a tired old anti-leftist stereotype at me. I trolled back, sorry *shrug*
|
