Naughty George and Charles...

[Nash]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Nuke, just remember that it was the Senate subcommittee that gave him a soapbox to rant on.

Best headline I heard about it is:

"Empty Suit Politician Walks into Propellor."

[NUKE]

"Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice."

"As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defence made of his.

I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce.

"You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do.

"Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from the source is true, that I am 'the owner of a company which has made substantial profits from trading in Iraqi oil'.


That's some real powerful testimony, Nash. Just a windbag. we'll see how his "evidence" holds up.

[Nash]

Originally posted by NUKE
we'll see how his "evidence" holds up.

Heh.... "We'll see how the evidence holds up."

You slay me.

You didn't need the evidence to hold up in order to tag him as a "terrorist acting as a middleman for Saddam" did you?

Did you?

But now that this "terrorist" responds to the so-called evidence, you need to wait until HIS evidence undergoes scrutiny?

The best was you responding to the Senate report by saying: "I've only had time to read the first ten pages, but it looks very interesting." You do slay me Nuke.

Forget you.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Nash
Heh.... "We'll see how the evidence holds up."

You slay me.

You didn't need the evidence to hold up in order to tag him as a "terrorist acting as a middleman for Saddam" did you?

Did you?

But now that this "terrorist" responds to the so-called evidence, you need to wait until HIS evidence undergoes scrutiny?

The best was you responding to the Senate report by saying: "I've only had time to read the first ten pages, but it looks very interesting." You do slay me Nuke.

Forget you.

I never said George was a terrorist acting as a middleman for Saddam. Plus, his words are not "evidence"

And at the time, I had only read the first 10 pages. I made no judgment. Since then, I have read the entire report.

[Nash]

Originally posted by NUKE
I never said George was a terrorist acting as a middleman for Saddam. Plus, his words are not "evidence"

Oh bull...

The posts are still up there for anyone confused about the train of thought and where your post fit in and to whom it refered.

And no - his words are not evidence. The Senate reports words SHOULD contain some - no?.

Yet you accept the reports', and despite your claim now to the contrary say (about Galloway) "we'll see how his "evidence" holds up.

How can his evidence hold up if it is not evidence?

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Nash
Oh bull...

The posts are still up there for anyone confused about the train of thought and where your post fit in and to whom it refered to.

I never said George was a middleman for Saddam. Care to take a bet?

[Nash]

[edited my post above]

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Nash

And no - his words are not evidence. The Senate reports words SHOULD contain some - no?.
 

The thing is, how do you know that the Senate reports do not have evidence? You jumped all over this dipchit's words and took them as truth.

I'm saying let the evidence be heard.

[Nash]

It was, Nuke.

The evidence was heard. Today.

Investigated? We'll see. I would have hoped that an investigation ruling out any of Galloway's biotch-slapping would have taken place before the accusation was made and Galloway's appearence in front of the Senate, but you can't have everything.

How about the evidence being backed up? No - that didn't happen.

I'll patiently await the arrival of word that Galloway's one-man company turned him into an oil tycoon. But I won't hold my breath.

I won't hold it long enough to find out that Galloway was indeed a terrorist oil tycoon, nor will I hold it awaiting your acceptance of the truth, no matter its content. It would be a stupid thing to do, and I would die. Because you never would.

I reckon you would have liked it back in teh olden days.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Nash
It was, Nuke.

The evidence was heard. Today.

 

No evidence was presented, only testimony.

You think that talking is evidence?


I'll be happy to waite for the evidence.

[Nash]

It's funny to me that the Senate, upon accusing someone, should not be expected to present evidence, and that the burdon fell to the accused.

I'm still not forgetting the obvious here - you didn't need evidence by the accuser in order to come to your conclusion before today, and after today, it's suddenly required of the accused.

Ciao.

[Momus--]

The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation....

..A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them...

..The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.

"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales..

Source

I am truly shocked.

Really I am.
 

[Schaden]

Originally posted by GScholz
Can Galloway sue the US government?

And btw. NUKE is an oil stealing, kiddie porn watching, prisoner sodomizing war criminal! ... Oh, did I just make a totally unsubstantiated accusation? How American of me.


(Disclaimer: Not that all Americans make unsubstantiated accusations, just the majority of the neo-cons in this forum.)

 If at all possible he will - last time he was accused of something he took the owner of the very right wing Telegraph paper for $3.00 million - I don't think he's ever lost a libel suit, he's taken on the Labour Party, Tony Blair, he fought a campaign vs a labour politician - Oona King in a very black, very (up till now) Labour constituency - where ms King had an majority of over 10,000 vote and won.

I personally don't agree with everything the guy says but he's very bright, very tough and does not lose.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Nash

I'm still not forgetting the obvious here - you didn't need evidence by the accuser in order to come to your conclusion before today, and after today, it's suddenly required of the accused.

Ciao.

I never once came to a conclusion about this guy's guilt or innocence. I said the report seemed  interesting. I also said the guy seems like a disgusting person.

I said it seems like they might have evidence against him.

Nash, you are the one who had an orgasm after the guy spewed a bunch of garbage about the UN sanctions, the evil US and how he was right about everything in Iraq.......all of which has nothing to do with the oil for food scandal.

[Nash]

Originally posted by NUKE
I never once came to a conclusion about this guy's guilt or innocence. I said the report seemed  interesting. I also said the guy seems like a disgusting person.

I said it seems like they might have evidence against him.

Nash, you are the one who had an orgasm after the guy spewed a bunch of garbage about the UN sanctions, the evil US and how he was right about everything in Iraq.......all of which has nothing to do with the oil for food scandal.

Okay, in your world you never pronounced him guilty (as if that means anything), you basically only said that he seems guilty. A not so subtle distinction not so lost on me.

And Nuke - you are the one going batchit about all this other stuff (sanctions/Iraq state of affairs). I can point out how repeatedly in this thread you will not let these things drop; can you do the same for mine?

He was there to talk about the Oil/Food scandle. He addressed those issues. You overlook them and fixatedly talk about this other stuff, then say I'm the one doing it? I don't think so buddy.