May 18, 2005
CAN'T BLUSTER THE BLUSTERERS:
Galloway bluster fails to convince Senate (GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN, 5/18/05, The Scotsman)
GEORGE Galloway yesterday failed in his attempt to convince a sceptical US Senate investigative committee that he had not profited from oil dealings with Iraq under the UN’s controversial oil-for-food programme.Despite a typically barnstorming performance full of bluster and rhetorical flourishes, the former Glasgow Kelvin MP was pinned down by persistent questioning over his business relationship with Fawaz Zureikat, the chairman of the Mariam Appeal - set up to assist a four-year-old Iraqi girl suffering from leukaemia.
And it was a Democrat senator, Carl Levin, rather than the Republican committee chairman, Norm Coleman, who gave him the hardest time as Mr Galloway sought to turn the tables on his inquisitors, leaving him no closer to clearing his name than when he took his seat in front of the sub-committee of the Senate’s homeland security and government affairs committee in Washington.
Time and again, Mr Levin questioned him, requesting wearily that he deliver a straight answer to a straight question. But Mr Galloway could, or would not.
Yikes, even the American Left finds the Euro Left tiresome? Posted by Orrin Judd at May 18, 2005 7:47 AM
Agreed. Qhen Carl Levin all up in your bidness something is wrong.
Posted by: H. D. Miller at May 18, 2005 7:51 AM"When", dammit, "When"
Posted by: H. D. Miller at May 18, 2005 7:53 AMLooks Galloway suffers from the reverse Oliver North effect. The more he talks, the worse he looks.
Posted by: erp at May 18, 2005 7:59 AMDidn't see it. NRO is claiming Galloway cleaned the US Senator's clocks. Depends on your viewpoint.
Posted by: AWW at May 18, 2005 8:04 AMThe only one over at NRO claiming Galloway won is John Darbyshire. That's the same John Darbyshire that wants Michael Schiavo for a drinking buddy. Having Darbyshire on your side is sort of like having Andrew Sullivan tell you you have a cute rear end.
Posted by: Mike Morley at May 18, 2005 8:31 AMQuite a character.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at May 18, 2005 8:39 AMIf you were expecting Galloway to be torn into a quivering mass of flesh on the committee room floor by the Senate panel, then it was a disappointment. On the other hand, those tuning in to see a reinactment of the Army-McCarthy hearings by Galloway may have been happy with his bombastic performance, but the fact that Carl Levin was as tough on George as Norm Coleman was, instead of taking Galloway's side, had to leave any far left viewers equally disappointed.
Posted by: John at May 18, 2005 10:29 AMABC news left me with the impression last night that Galloway flummoxed the Senate panel I like this article better.
Posted by: Genecis at May 18, 2005 10:47 AMOK. I was wrong he showed up. Giving him a platform was not a good idea.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 18, 2005 10:57 AMSince Galloway does not face prosecution for perjury, he was free to lie through his teeth, denying anything he wanted even if his lying was obvious. Under such conditions, it is not difficult to look good to the ignorant and the gullible. Just ask OJ Simpson.
Posted by: bart at May 18, 2005 11:20 AMMike Morley:
Derbyshire is also, by his own admission, an extremely pessimistic personality. Like Robert Novak, he believes the Left wins its battles much more often than it really does.
His perspective is often quirky, and he can be fun to read, but I don't trust his political judgment.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at May 18, 2005 11:59 AMDerbyshire is a very capable writer, and I used to be something of a fan, accepting the pessimisim as part of the package. However, he said some stuff during the Schiavo affair that--well, put it this way, if I were personally acquainted with him, it would have been friendship-destroying.
Posted by: Mike Morley at May 18, 2005 2:06 PM