Galloway likens Sen. Norm Coleman to Joe McCarthy

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Don't you just love the way Galloway manages to insult pretty much everyone who had their lives ruined by McCarthy in a pathetic attempt to save himself from falling into the big hole that he's dug?

I should point out that he doesn't have to come, the only reason why there was any pressure on him to come was due to his own ego-tripping lie about requesting to be seen by the committee a year or so back and that his reaction to the initial news could be described as one of panic...

As far as most people over here are concerned he's as guilty as hell (he managed to blow any symphathy he had, which wasn't much, due to some election a week or so ago) and I suspect that anything he does now will be an attempt to shore up his standings with the Bethnal Green Bangladeshi's and to try to stop being expelled from the Commons. He currently stands a very good chance at becoming the first M.P to be expelled by the House since (IIRC) 1954.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I should add that I'd rather the hearing thingy not descending into farce, but as this is Galloway there's no chance of that *not* happening...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What are the rules for expelling a member of the commons?

Been checking up on this; IIRC a select committee recommends a motion of expusion, which the House then votes on. That's it.

Further checking shows that the last M.P to be expelled from the Commons was a Tory M.P from Norfolk in 1954 but had the motion to expel Stonehouse in '75  not been delayed not to predjudice his trial, and had he not resigned before it could be done again, he would have been the most recent.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And the hearing whatsit is over.
I don't *think* that Galloway will want to be in the same room as Senator Levin ever again

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If an M.P is expelled there's a by-election. I don't think an expelled M.P is allowed to stand again, but I don't know for sure.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Note this is just my opinion, others may disagree.

Galloway gave a fairly standard issue rant which had little to do with the reason why he was there... oh he threw in a couple of soundbites... and didn't answer the early questions (from Coleman I think) all that badly for the most part. He ran into a spot of bother with Levin, who basically tore him to pieces (and very nice to watch that part was ). Galloway kept trying to dodge Levin's questions.
Towards the end of the hearing, Galloway was asked how friendly he was/is with Tariq Aziz and admitted that he (Aziz) was a "dear friend". He also admitted to have met Aziz in person "many times". He admitted that this was over 15, but didn't go further.
Coleman was grinning after that.

Overall, he did pretty badly, failed to "clear his name" and offered up sod all evidence that would do so.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Interestly enough, the liberal press in the United States is trying (pathetically) to spin this as Galloway winning!

Media here is doing the same; on the news they only showed his early rant not his response to the questioning.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Galloway did manage to get a nice anti-semiitc "Zionist" blast in there.

True. He really is a "charming" individual at times. But he's "anti-war" so that's O.K.

Just checking how good your lawyers are George. You're a terrible human being. You're an anti-semitic, sexist, racist little wit who's only an M.P because he found a seat full of nasty little bigots who were also very easy to exploit. Oh and the intimidation as well. Have you actually turned up at Parliament this year yet? I mean it's only about a mile away from you're new constituency. Guess not. You have more important things to do. Like getting a tan in Portugal. And screwing you're mistresses or donkeys or whatever. Has you're wife's divorce gone through yet? What think you of the fact that a certain newspaper is appealing it's libel loss? And isn't it a wee bit hypocrital of you to work for the Daily Mail? Guess not; I mean it means you get more money so it's obviously O.K, eh?[/color]

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is it just me or when someone's arguement is just:

LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!LIER!

Or:

ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!ILLEGAL!

They don't really have much of an arguement?
Mind you that's the whole Iraq thing all over (from the '80's til now). A lot of pathetic arguments from either side.

Can't we all just agree to disagree over this? Or this that too hard?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why should Bush lying be worse than Saddam lying? Why the double standard here?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

That's funny. Over his political career, Galloway has accomplished, what exactly? Making himself very rich and getting a tan. Oh and making himself just about the most unpopular politician in Britain as far as most people are concerned.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Charities Commision thingy has said it's going have another investigation of Galloway's appeal thingy.