Could someone explain the Cliff Notes version of Galloway?

[HeeBGBz]

All of a sudden I see a gazillion threads, but I can't figure out what current scandal/issue he belongs with.

Could someone give me a brief rundown?

[Botany]

1. This help?

http://www.edwardsdavid.com/BushVideos/msnbc_uk_galloway_blisters_us_on_iraq_050517-01.mp3

[XemaSab]

6. Brilliant!

My new hero!!!!!!!

[HeeBGBz]

9. Thanks. I will watch it soon

I listened for a minute and am sending the man a ^5

[lapfog_1]

2. Let's see...

Idiot junior senator holds hearings on U.N. "oil for Food" scandal...

They have documents and a list of names... one of the persons named
is a British MOP named Galloway (who, apparently, is ALSO an anti-war
and anti-Neocon person).

At least some (if not all) of the documents are forgeries... MOP
Galloway has already successfully sued British press over the
allegations.

Galloway shows up to Senate hearing and hands the Neocons their
asses. "you were wrong about Iraq and I was right!" and
"pack of lies" (about the admins reasons to go to war) and many
more choice comments.

It's really nice to see someone on the MSM who has both a command
of the facts and a command of the English language!

[Bouncy Ball]

3. And it. Was beautiful.

A true thing of beauty.

To the OP, do check out the audio and video links. They are a thing to behold.

[Pacifist Patriot]

13. I was thoroughly depressed yesterday. Today I'm on Cloud 9.

Galloway totally made my day. He can brush away those Newsweek retraction blues any time.

[Bouncy Ball]

15. Heh heh.

Yep. I found myself wanting to kiss him. Repeatedly.

[HeeBGBz]

17. Oh he's a patriot in the real sense.

I was having a Braveheart moment. Is there a video of this?

He is one month younger than me. Thank you Wikipedia.
That was a good summer.

[HeeBGBz]

8. Thanks. I sort of got it now.

I need to watch the clip because this guy seems to have cohones and backbone.

[Pacifist Patriot]

14. Definitely watch the clip. While the transcript makes for

delightful reading, nothing can take the place of his impassioned delivery.

[HeeBGBz]

16. Did he just explode out of nowhere?

I bet he needs a hug.

[Roland99]

18. He was BEAUTIFUL!

I'd kiss him on the mouth if he were here now!

[Pacifist Patriot]

4. Wikopedia has a good article on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway

[rodeodance]

12. yes, some good stuff. thanks

....Oil for Food
<[br />
Daily Telegraph

On April 22, 2003, the Daily Telegraph published an article describing documents which the paper claimed had been found by its reporter David Blair in the ruins of the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. The documents purport to be records of meetings between Galloway and Iraqi intelligence agents, and state that he had received £375,000 per year from the proceeds of the Oil for Food programme <4> (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/22/ngall22.xml). Galloway completely denied the story, insisting that the documents were forgeries, and pointing to the questionable nature of the discovery within an unguarded bombed-out building. He instigated legal action against the newspaper, which was heard in the High Court from November 14, 2004 (HQ03X0206, George Galloway MP vs. Telegraph Group Ltd.) On December 2, Justice David Eady ruled that the story had been "seriously defamatory", and that the Telegraph was "obliged to compensate Mr Galloway... and to make an award for the purposes of restoring his reputation". Galloway was awarded £150,000 damages plus costs estimated to total £1.2 million. In UK libel cases, the winning party is also normally awarded costs, with the loser paying the bill. The court did not grant leave to appeal; in order to appeal in the absence of leave, the defendants would have to petition the House of Lords.

The libel case was regarded by both sides as an important test of the Reynolds qualified-privilege defence <5> (http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1999/45.html). The Daily Telegraph did not attempt to claim justification (a defence in which the defendant bears the onus of proving that the defamatory reports are true): "It has never been the Telegraph's case to suggest that the allegations contained in these documents are true" <6> (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4061165.stm). Instead, the paper sought to argue that it acted responsibly because the allegations it reported were of sufficient public interest to outweigh the damage caused to Galloway's reputation. However, the court ruled that "It was the defendants' primary case that their coverage was no more than 'neutral reportage' ... but the nature, content and tone of their coverage cannot be so described."

The Daily Telegraph has not published any investigation as to whether their documents were genuine, but a 2005 US senate report <7> (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_05_05_psi_report.pdf) comments that the original article "apparently included forged documents".......

[goodhue]

5. watch the video!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3672646

[Roland99]

7. Here ya go:

U.S. Senate? STFU, yo! Get outta my grill!

[rodeodance]

10. "Sr. Iraqi officials"--says Coleman--not able to supply Galloway

with names of who these officials are. When asked later (think Lou Dobbs)--about this--Coleman said that circumstantial evidence was oK (paraphasing).

[wakeme2008]

11. Cliff Notes version

Somebody that donated to Galloway, also did a lot of business in Iraq (airports etc) and also was part of the food for oil program (which was legal) but to get the share of the food for oil program he gave a kickback to Saddam. So Coleman wants Galloway guilty for the business practices of a donor.... :rofl: And galloway pointed out congress members do not ask their donors WHERE THEY GOT THEIR MONEY......