George Galloway Opens a Can on the US Senate

I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction.                               

I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda.                               

I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001.                               

I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.

Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.

These are very strong words.  From a Briton, no less.  There are few Americans on TV or otherwise who would speak Truth to Power like this.  I imagine some readers would try to argue against this, but no affirmative evidence of what the US tried to tell everyone has really materialized (and no, Rush, FoxNews, The RNC, Scott McClellan, or Any other Prominent Republican do not count.)

Very Soon, either the Republicans will crack and fall, or they'll gain total control.
               

Comments

[mca]

I totaly agree that iraq was a mistake from the very begining. We had no business invading. Unlike afghanistan wich we do have business reason for being there hunting osama wich by the way took a back seat to iraq wich never should have happened. Now our troops are so far spraed apart what if we face a real threat say from N.korea or even Iran and who knows what else along with them that would be real credible threats to our national security? First off electing Bush was wrong. Going into Iraq was wrong and giving the pursuit for osama a back seat was wrong too. What does everyone else think?

[Chris]

The absence of proof in favor of invasion/electing Bush does not consitute proof of the opposing view. I'm not in favor of what the Bush administration has done. I'm saying your logic is a little off, to say that since they can't prove they were right, they have to be wrong.

[Gene]

"and no, Rush, FoxNews, The RNC, Scott McClellan, or Any other Prominent Republican do not count.)"

John is right (left) we should gather our news from NBC and Newsweek since they are fair and balanced.
John, also, would have us take the word of a "liar" who was documented to be "sleeping with the enemy". Logic would dictate that we filter the comments of such a Galloway through his obvious biases.
Notice that Galloway makes no mention of the extermination of the Iraqi people that was taking place. Aso notice that John has not posted anything on the mass graves that have been discovered in Iraq. We must remember that John was singing the praises of the fallen minutemen experience just a few weeks ago......still going and going and .... I suggest we withold judgment until the end. The evidence is obviously not yet all in...

[mca]

Hey Chris, was it worth our troops life for bush's lies about WMD ?

[funkknot]

I haven't had a chance to actually see Norm Coleman "interviewing" Galloway. I've heard that, more than Coleman "exposing" Galloway, the net effect of the discussion was actually the "exposing" of how inept and hypocritical Coleman is.

I'm particularly interested in this because I'm from Minnesota, and Coleman's election -- as you all probably know -- took place under some crazy circumstances. If Wellstone had not died in that plane crash, I seriously doubt Minnesota would be suffering from such poor representation ala Bushboy (that's Coleman's nickname here on the North Coast).

"Very Soon, either the Republicans will crack and fall, or they'll gain total control."

I can only hope the first of these two alternatives take place. I would amend it to say "THESE Republicans" will crack...... There are good folks on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, the "good ones" on the Repub side (Guiliani, McCain, et al...) seem to have served their purpose last fall at the RNC, and have now been tossed aside like a....well...use your imagination.

I DO, however, see some tiny cracks in the foundation slowly opening up wider as more and more Bush voters are (reluctantly, yes) starting to see they did not vote in their own (or their family's/communtity's) best interests. I'm doing my best to not take the "I told you so" approach when I see the head scratching and glazed over looks settling in, as jobs continue to go away, as health coverage continues to be less for more money, as schools continue to close their doors, as "Red State" air force bases are about to close down, as one trip to the gas station now costs what you used to spend on gas for an entire MONTH, as more body bags come home.... I really try, with all my might, to not say "I told ya so." I really try to be "compassionate" as all these things continue to unfold.

On the other hand, how much time is there for "compassion" when so much damage has already been done, and so much greater damage -- damage that will take generations to fix -- is about to be done???????

[John]

Gene--

""and no, Rush, FoxNews, The RNC, Scott McClellan, or Any other Prominent Republican do not count.)"

John is right (left) we should gather our news from NBC and Newsweek since they are fair and balanced.
John, also, would have us take the word of a "liar" who was documented to be "sleeping with the enemy". Logic would dictate that we filter the comments of such a Galloway through his obvious biases.
Notice that Galloway makes no mention of the extermination of the Iraqi people that was taking place. Aso notice that John has not posted anything on the mass graves that have been discovered in Iraq. We must remember that John was singing the praises of the fallen minutemen experience just a few weeks ago......still going and going and .... I suggest we withold judgment until the end. The evidence is obviously not yet all in..."

I thought I saw a report a few weeks ago that a) said minutemen were gone, and b) said border patrol wasn't going to patrol the area the minutemen were at. Since you're in the affirmative in saying the minutemen are still there, you need proof to back up your claim. If you listened to Galloway's testimony, you would realize that Galloway claims that most everything they have on him is a lie or a sham... He talked about some Christian Science Monitor papers that were a hoax, etc. I would side with Galloway on this, since it has to do with oil. I think our Oilmen Rulers are probably dirty as Mae West about this Oil-for-Food scandal.

[Futurist]

Has anyone noticed that with the exception of the NY Times, it seems that none of the other newspapers in the United States and none of the TV networks news broadcasts covered the testimony of British MP George Galloway before the Uniteds States Senate?

Why?

[Gene]

John,

"you listened to Galloway's testimony, you would realize that Galloway claims that most everything they have on him is a lie or a sham..."

Sure he makes this claim. He's been busted. If the Christian Science monitor "lied" where is the evidence? By Evidence I refer to such as we have on NBC & Newsweek and their "shams". I'm not surprised that there is support for Galloway since his ideology is anti-Bush and for some, that is their only agenda.

[Shadeseether]

Gene,

First you said:

"John is right (left) we should gather our news from NBC and Newsweek since they are fair and balanced. John, also, would have us take the word of a "liar" who was documented to be "sleeping with the enemy". Logic would dictate that we filter the comments of such a Galloway through his obvious biases."

Then you said:

"I suggest we withold judgment until the end."

Then you said:

"Sure he makes this claim. He's been busted. If the Christian Science monitor "lied" where is the evidence? By Evidence I refer to such as we have on NBC & Newsweek and their "shams". I'm not surprised that there is support for Galloway since his ideology is anti-Bush and for some, that is their only agenda."

First of all, stop flip flopping. In one sentence you condemn this man as a liar, without providing any supporting evidence I might add. A few sentences later you suggest that we not make any judgements, when you already have yourself. You can't even take your own advice here.

Secondly, the Christian Science Monitor themselves exposed the documents as forgeries. So the article was not run. So there is no evidence aside from the fact that they were working on a story and it never got published because it was unsubstantiated. Innocent until proven guilty my friend.

Third..."I'm not surprised that there is support for Galloway since his ideology is anti-Bush and for some, that is their only agenda."

I have a hard time understanding how not wanting to facilitate the deaths of THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT CHILDREN makes someone's 'only agenda' an anti-Bush ideology. I think that has more to do with respecting the value of human life. It's also directly in line with biblical law. (Thou shalt not kill.) Your kind tends to toss that out the window when it's inconvenient to your agenda though.

So Gene, you want to explain to us why this man is a liar? Maybe provide some documentation for your ugly name calling? Or is he a liar because he disagrees with your ideology? You know, the one that says we should kill all the infidels and force their children to learn Christian dogma in school...while blowing their cousins to smithereens so that we can steal their oil. Wow, you better call me a liar because I don't agree with that ideology either.

[Cowcharge]

"Hey Chris, was it worth our troops life for bush's lies about WMD ?"

I'm really getting tired of this being blamed solely on Bush. Get your facts straight MCA. Bush didn't invent the perception that Iraq possessed WMD. Here are a few quotes (The first 7 were all before Bush became president!): http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/040816

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." — President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." — Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." — Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." — Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D — MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." — Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." — Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

" We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." —Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.

"Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002

"There is one thing we agree upon, and that is that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. He is a tyrant. He has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. He has disregarded United Nations resolutions calling for inspections of his capabilities and research and development programs. His forces regularly fire on American and British jet pilots enforcing the no-fly zones in the north and south of his country. And he has the potential to develop and deploy nuclear weapons... — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

But inspectors have had a hard time getting truthful information from the Iraqis they interview. Saddam Hussein terrorizes his people, including his weapons scientists, so effectively that they are afraid to be interviewed in private, let alone outside the country. They know that even the appearance of cooperation could be a death sentence for themselves or their families.

"To overcome this obstacle, and to discover and dismantle Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, UNMOVIC and the IAEA must interview relevant persons securely and with their families protected, even if they protest publicly against this treatment. Hans Blix may dislike running ''a defection agency,' but that could be the only way to obtain truthful information about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction — Sen. Joseph Biden

"With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

"Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. — Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002

[Gene]

Cowcharge,

Great job! Many act as if we live under a dictatorship.

[Gene]

Shade,

You really should calm down you are allowing you emotions to run away with you.

"I suggest we withhold judgment until the end."

I was referring to Iraq not Galloway.

"I have a hard time understanding how not wanting to facilitate the deaths of THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT CHILDREN makes someone's 'only agenda' an anti-Bush ideology."

I agree with you Shade. Our brave military has put a stop to the slaughter.

The Lies: I would share but it is on the banned list of News organizations. Sorry…

[Da Troot]

You've definately taken one too many up the back door John Boy.

[mca]

First off everyone that stuck up for us being there in iraq is all republicans no doubt. we had no business in Iraq cow charge and gene. We neededto concentrate on finding osama bin laden ::remember him?:: He did wat suddam never could do. Hit us on the back door and kill thousands in the process on our american soil.Clinton is just as misled as Bush is on many issues and so are about 90 percent of our politicians who cannot balance thier own bank account let alone the federal deficit. remember rubbergate in the 80s when it came to light how badly congressman was bad at even taking care of thier personal accounts? And we trust them to get a balanced budget for us. If you support Bush in this needless invasion in iraq then that is your choice.And you are welcome to it.But now with our military so much split up over the world how could we defend ourselves effectively say if a real threat like iran or N. korea sent a nuke our way?

[John]

Cowcharge--

Those are good points, but I know I never felt threatened by Saddam personally. If it is a moral issue, then the US should've invaded many mnay other countries as well, like say, North Korea. When was Saddam not 'in check'? I think we sold Saddam many of those 'WMDs' that we spoke of.

[kelso]

The British press (more ruthless than American) has been after Galloway for years and years and years, but to their chagrine have not been able to pin anything on him. He sued one paper over false documents on this and won.

For that boresome poster who gives us a ton of quotes on all those people who thought Saddam had WMD, we go back to the UK. The Blair memo, which Blair did not deny, which states that he had received communications that show that the US (Bush) in 2002 was intent on war with Iraq and intended to MAKE the intelligence support what they wanted.

[DWA]

Da Troot

Not that I want to egg you on...but have you noticed that all of your, (albiet completely off the point and useless) statements have something to do with homosexuality. Sounds like someone is obsessed...Closet case?

[DWA]

I cannot believe that we impeached a president for having a private sexual faux paux. But we're totally cool with a president that sends thousands of our young men and women to die for a lie.

I have some serious issues with anyone who voted for him. I just stay as far away from them as I can...cuz they're responsible. People will continue to die for this, and no one seems to care that it was all a lie.

I have completely lost faith in this country, and the people who run it, and the majority who voted for the father of lies and his minions. Sheep. Repeating by rote what the government wants us all to believe...Even though it's such an obvious lie.

Don't say that he was bad to his people..blah blah blah. If we went to war with every country that had a dick running it, we'd just all be drafted at 16, and we'd be at war with ourselves...as far as human rights go...we're far from perfect.

I don't know...I'm just sick about it. I knew when 9/11 happened that these bastards would use it to further their own evil, powermongering agendas....and they did. We exist in a time of the most foul corruption...it will destroy us.

[DWA]

Sorry...I tend to do this...I write something and then I remember something...

I do not want to go without mentioning the innocent Iraqi citizens who we have bombed into oblivion, or at least poverty. It's unexcusable.

[William]

I saw a part of the speech on TV testerday(?) Didn't know what it was at the time, but sure sounded interesting. My only problem was that the guy speaking didn't get forceful enough. I'm about tired of this world domination gambit; haven't the American people learned anything from Viet Nam onward!?!?!?

[Lisa C.]

Isn't there a difference between looking for WMDs and planning for the future if and when you find them, rather than knowing by your own intelligence agency that the WMDs are not there, but using that false reason, lying to the American people for a reason to go to war? Yeah, Clinton lied to the American people too, but thousands of our boys didn't die for his lie.

[id]

Lisa,Clinton was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of our warriors and innocent people in Beruit, Somalia, first World Trade Tower bombing, The Cole incident, just to name a few because he could'nt work his fly and lead at the same time.All this done by Al-Qieda on his watch with no action taken and All this led up to 9/11. Zarqawi was operating a training camp in northern Iraq at the time. He was in Bagdhad on BBC TV the night Clinton bombed it for running the inspectors out. His famous words now forgotten, "America, remember this picture" as he pointed to the bombed building behind him in which his son was injured. Fewer terrorist acts have been directed towards the US in the last five years than the last two years of Clinton. Iraq is the killing field thanks to Clintons inaction during his eight worthless years. Better there than here.

[Lisa C.]

id - if this is all true, why wasn't this reason used as a reason to go to war? Can you really justify lying to the American public? Are we that stupid he couldn't tell us the truth? I have no problem with war when it's needed, but if we can't trust our own president to tell us the truth who can we trust? 11 of the 14 9/11 bombers were Saudi Arabian, but we see no action in Saudi Arabia, why? Could it be the oil business?Everything you mention about Clinton's inaction and yet you never mention about George Bush senior's inaction to finish the job he originally started which would've prevented this whole mess in the first place. Clinton might not have had such a hard time running the country if the republicans wouldn't have made his and his wife's personal business a national scandal.

[John]

id-- You act like Clinton knew tantra and had sex all the time. At least Clinton didn't let two planes fly into the WTC and then sit and read a book with a dumb look on his face for 7 minutes.

[id]

John Boy, We all had a dumb look on our faces when it happend. Those that haven'nt figured it out yet still have dumb looks on their faces.
Where were you when the first plane hit the wall?
Were you sleeping with Alice or passed out in the hall?
Were you standing in the shower singing, never to think this could happen at all?
Where were you when you heard it on the radio?
Were you standing in line with no place to go?
Were you thinking about your sons and your daughters?
Did you teach them everything that they ought to know?
Who did you blame when you saw it on TV?
Was it Sadamn Huseine or did you blame Tel Aviv?
Do you think YOU had something to do with it,
or do you tell yourself something easier to believe?..... The id