| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Belmont Club Analyzes Gorgeous George Galloway |
| 2005-05-23 |
| ...[T]he testimony of George Galloway before the US Senate has gone missing. According to VUNet: The website for the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs has removed testimony from UK MP George Galloway from its website. All other witness testimonies for the hearings on the Oil for Food scandal are available on the Committee's website in PDF form. But Galloway's testimony is the only document not on the site... Press representatives for the Committee had no comment. The Senate Committee website itself has these terse entries, here reproduced verbatim which does not say that the testimony has been removed but that "Mr Galloway did not submit a statement"... The declaration that "Mr Galloway did not submit a statement" is curious given the fact that he spoke for 47 minutes before the Senate, a performance which Christopher Hitchens, no admirer of Galloway, believed was a rhetorical "humiliation" of the Senate... To account for the discrepancy between the factual existence of Galloway's testimony and its nonappearance in the Senate website raises the possibility that Mr. Galloway's oral testimony is considered distinct from a written statement by the Senate rules or it has been expunged from the record because it puts the Senators in a bad light. But there is a third possibility. ...Galloway had come to score press and public relations points at which, by all accounts, he was successful at doing. But Senator[s] Coleman and Levin seemed totally uninterested in responding to Galloway's sharp political jibes. It was almost as if the Senators were deaf to his political posturing. Instead, they focused exclusively and repeatedly on two things: Galloway's relationship with Fawaz Zureikat and Tariq Aziz. Zureikat was a board member of Galloway's Mariam foundation who is also implicated in the Oil For Food deals. Tariq Aziz was Saddam's vice president... |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #2 I think Galloway is a small fry in this story. I think that the Senators knew the answers to the questions before they were even asked. I think the disconnest between what Galloway said and the 'facts" don't converge. I don't attribute the removal of his spoken testimony as anything big or important. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-05-23 16:24 |
| #1 Sorry - This should be Page 2. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-05-23 12:44 |