[vyper]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4556113.stm

No transcript does it justice.

He ate them alive.

[Rictor]

I just watched a short clip, and though I can't place it in context, he looked to be dodging the question.

I'm glad he called their bluff, and actually went to cofront the Senate. And better yet, that it was someone with balls enough to rip into them.

[vyper]

I imagine that clip will be the one to get the most air time - he was being asked whether he would be "troubled" if he learned the guy who donated to the kids charity was involved in kickbacks with the Iraq regime in exchange for oil.

He was pretty much trying to avoid having to say: I didn't have time to ask, we needed to get the money before the kids died.

In the end he gave them just as good a stick to beat him with in the media by avoiding the question.

Sadly it will probably be used in the US to overshadow the rest of his statement, which took them to task without any mercy.

[Rictor]

Damn, the whole thing is apprently up on the BBC's website, but it's getting hammered.

[vyper]

I was hoping it would get torrented by someone eventually. If I find one, I shall share.

[IceFire]

Watched a good 20 minutes of it.  I'm very interested to see this guy actually stand upto the U.S. senate and tell them about his views on the war in Iraq, what they did wrong, and put it into context with what he seems to have been attempted to be linked to.

I get the impression that he was named because they were looking to try and poke holes in people they didn't like because he seems to have no real connection to anything that they are talking about...its all shady business in general it seems...

[Roanoke]

A British MP calling on people to kill British Soliders is a bit low though.

[IceFire]

Originally posted by Roanoke
A British MP calling on people to kill British Soliders is a bit low though.

Missed that bit...

[vyper]

Originally posted by Roanoke
A British MP calling on people to kill British Soliders is a bit low though.

In fairness he told those same soldiers to refuse to go in the first place as well.

It was out of line though.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
I just watched a short clip, and though I can't place it in context, he looked to be dodging the question.

I'm glad he called their bluff, and actually went to cofront the Senate. And better yet, that it was someone with balls enough to rip into them.

You have to see it Rictor. You'd love it. He basically said that this Oil for Food inquiry was a big smokescreen to divert attention from the fact that there is a bigger scandal going on right now and that the senator in charge of the commission actually presided over a much larger sum of money being stolen from Iraq


When I saw the testimony on TV I said to my mum that the commission would regret naming him on such spurious evidence (and it is spurious. One of the charges has him receiving money from the Oil for Food system before it even started ). As I said they basically invited him to stand outside of the tent and piss inwards

[vyper]

It scares me, I was proud of one of our politicians...

[karajorma]

I know. I never much liked Galloway for the comments he made about getting troops to desert etc but he has my full backing on this one.

Then again there always have been a very small number of politicians who I did like. Tony Benn for instance.

[Fergus]

He must be absolutly reveling in the misery he is going to inflict on the people who even try to ask him questions, although he said some things in the past that..well, were a bit supsect to say the least, but at least he said what his views were instead of hiding behind the usual jingoistic nonsense.

[vyper]

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/1128/1/32/

Partial transcript for those who don't know too much about this.

[Rictor]

Ah, that was great. Much shorter than I thought it would be (he's not coming back, is he?). You know good things are afoot when he starts off with "Now I know standards have dropped in Washington in recent years, but..."

Personally, he did seem to be evading questions, which is fine considering who's on the other side of the table, but the media can and likely will use it against him.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
(he's not coming back, is he?).

Depends on whether or not the Senate felt humiliated enough or not I guess

When he was going to go there I knew that there would be trouble but when the made the situation worse by denying Galloway's claims that he had tried to contact them (Something like "we have not recieved communication from Mr Galloway by phone, fax, e-mail, telegraph or carrier pigeon") I knew that they'd made the mistake of pissing him off

As for him evading the question why is it his f**king business to check where money donated to his charity came from? Were the Senate trying to suggest that every single charity donation should be checked to make sure that it's not the proceeds of white-collar crime?
 
If that's the case the senators might find it hard to get their own donations accepted.