Galloway likens Sen. Norm Coleman to Joe McCarthy

[MissCatholic]

this is going to be very interesting on tuesday.

Galloway has alot of things to say about spineless Republicans and the way they kiss bushs arse.

[MissCatholic]

Galloway chose to appear in the commitee. he is furious that the republican attack machine has made comments and accusations about him without asking him any questions.

His number one goal is the removal of Blair (will happen by the end of the year) and the removal and arrest of bush!

it is a must see on tuesday. galloway will have a go at coleman.

[MissCatholic]

Whatever your opinion is of Mr.Galloway he is in all regards a very smart guy.

I listened to his testimony yesterday and he was right to tell Mr.Coleman that you have no problem accepting money from companies that wanted the Iraqi war to happen. He messed up by saying that Levin supported the illegal war - only one lawyer has claimed that it was legal - when infact senator levin did not support the war.

The war was the right thing to do. but it was illegal.

[MissCatholic]

Galloway has already stated that once blair goes his next trget is bush. i wouldnt put anything past him.

Galloway believes that the sanctions were wrong and he thinks that bush has the blood of 100,000 people on his hands.

It really wouldnt surprise me if he campaigned agaisnt mr.coleman for his smokescren job.

[MissCatholic]

Well he has been the strongest voice who opposed the iraq war. whether you agree or disagree with that his opinion has facts that cant be denied and in the eyes of God most honest people would say that bushs was illegal but maybe right.

I approved of the invasion of iraq but it was illegal. you cannot dispute the legality of the war. In a court bush would be imprisoned under war crimes- right or wrong - that is a indisputable fact.

[MissCatholic]

Galloway has already stated that once blair goes his next trget is bush. i wouldnt put anything past him.

Galloway believes that the sanctions were wrong and he thinks that bush has the blood of 100,000 people on his hands.

It really wouldnt surprise me if he campaigned agaisnt mr.coleman for his smokescren job.

I'm sure Coleman hopes that Galloway will support Coleman's opponent (should assure his reelection).

Didn't you figure out that when Carl Levin (good first name at least) ripped Galloway to shreds (Levin is a standard issue liberal Democrat) that there might be something going on?

i saw the same interview as you did. You remember mr.colemans remarks about receiving money from donars that supported the invasion. Galloway has no problem going on tv defeding himsefl. the same things that he was acused of by the telegraph he won in a court of law. the big fish dont like him as he has a strong opinion and he wont go away. while people die he wants people prosecuted.

whether it was right or wrong to go to iraq its your personal decision. i believe it was right. but the war was illegal

[MissCatholic]

"If the Security Council mean to authorize force they will do so using clear words; it's the phrase ‘all necessary means'. Now, the UK and the US thought about including that phrase in resolution 1441 in November, and again in this draft, and they backed off on both occasions, because they know they would not get an authorization passed by the Security Council."

Mr Shiner points out that when resolution 1441 was presented to the Council, both Washington and Downing Street insisted there were no hidden triggers for war in the text. The draft wording of a new resolution being pushed by the US and UK does not indicate any change from this position.

"As this resolution does no more than recall 1441 and the background, and notes that Iraq has had its final opportunity, it's outrageous for the UK and US to try and persuade us all that somehow they have got an authorization of force, when they haven't."

Serious mistake


TALKING ABOUT A RESOLUTION: Lawyers say the new resolution under consideration at the Security Council rests solely on its predecessor, resolution 1441. The latter document is a plainly worded warning to Iraq that the Security Council is "determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions." It says Iraq has "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and says "that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq . . . and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment." Finally, the resolution says if Iraq defies the resolution, "it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."
 
The phrase ‘serious consequences', which appeared in resolution 1441, has been taken by pro-war factions to justify an attack, but according to Mr Shiner it is only a reference to what the Security Council might do in the light of Iraqi defiance.

"What they [the UK and US] are trying, really, is a confidence trick. They hope that by talking about the need for a second resolution, that the public will not ask themselves the question, ‘yes, but what's in the second resolution'. It doesn't matter whether it's the second or the 102nd, the question is have they got an authorization of force, and the answer is clearly not."

[MissCatholic]

Blair likes Secularism does that make him bad?

Duriong the british elections he siad that we dont want an american style debate off whats right or wrong that decision is not for politicians its for people.

differnece between church and state in the uk.

here...dont think so