Who said Galloway wasn't a despicable person?
BTW: "condemning" while obstructing and supporting makes him a two-faced POS, just in case you were wondering.
You can be against someone without willing to tell lies and acting like a zealot. To me that just makes you as bad as him. I will still be condemning Galloway when you have forgotten his name, just as I did when you didn't know his name.
Tue May 17 18:25:47 2005
Hissy Chrissy has Galloway on HardBoiled....
>> Your response.
>> To be accused of a lack of moral character by senator norm coleman is like being told to sit up straight by the hunchback of notre dame. This is a guy who damned me around the world without ever asking me a single question. Without ever meeting me, writing to me, telephoning me. Without even telling me that he was investigating me. And you heard his answer there.
>> He would not answer a particular question about whether you benefitted personly. He did accuse you of benefitting indirectly because a friend of yours gave some money to a charity.
>> This is the $64,000 question. His only answer, when you asked him if i had benefited personly, was to say I must have done it because other people benefited personally. That's simply guilt by association. That's tactics that senator joe mccardsy would be proud of. I'm telling you. I have never benefited by one thing -- one thin dime. I have never bought or sole anything from iraq, to iraq, we emblazoned the support of the man he was talking about as the chairman of our campaign. Throughout all of our literature, long before the war, long before norman coleman was ever held off, we were telling people that we have three been factors. One is the king of the united arab emirates. The other is the crown prince of saudi arabia. The third is this businessman who does big business in iraq. No secret about it. Now if you say to me, it's not right to take money for political campaign from kings and businessmen. You might be right about that. Though I doubt if norman coleman is in much of a position to throw stones about that. But i personally benefited not one thin dime.
>> The charity you care about benefit?
>> It's an charity. It was a political campaign to lift sanctions on iraq. And of course owe glow did that campaign benefit from the vouchers that the saudi arabian government -- rather, did the government of saddam hussein was handing out?
>> Well, i didn't ask the king of the you about I'd arab emirates where he god the money.
>> Did you ask the other man?
>> I didn'T.
>> So you don't know.
>> Let me finish this point. I openly acknowledged at the time during and since, that he was a businessman doing business with iraq in the oil for food program. Now that was a legal trade. He was making some of the money that he made from his whole business empire available to our compaign. I'm glad he did. I'm glad that the crown prince of arabia did.
>> Why is your name on these documents?
>> Anyone can write anyone's name on a piece of paper. But if I had actually lifted oil, bought it, sold it, personally enriched myself, coleman would have been able to answer your question. And he wasn't able to answer your question.
>> Because you didn't make a thin dime.
>> Not one thin dime.
>> Why is he going after you?
>> Because he is the most pro war, pro israel, neo con hawk on the hill.
>> Why is he going after you?
>> I'm coming to that. There's a lot of competition for that title. A lot of competition for that title. And he is smearing the smoke screen. Kofi annan whose dismissal he demanded. Me. President chirac. Anybody that stood against the united states policy on the war, partly for reveferk and partly because it is a useful diversion. That you and I are talking now about this instead of talking about the big disaster that people like norman coleman has taken the whole world into.
>> Thank you very much. Back with
Just as I seem ( to you) to be inferring that you don't despise Galloway, you seem to be implying that I seek to frame him-- Both counts are untrue.
Let the evidence tell us the truth.
I AGREE with you. And, honestly I don't care if we find he was on the take or not-- what does that ultimately prove? That only bribed agents of Saddam can have an anti-war, appeasing, anti-western point of view?
If that were true we wouldn't have the millions of moronic appeasers biting at our asses on a continual basis.
No, it is entirely possible to come to this brain-sick point of view all on one's own-- with no help from Saddam.