< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Heat on Galloway


SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Heat on Galloway

Galloway will be investigated by the British tax department, and a joint UK-US team of elected representatives might be formed to further investigate claims made in the recent US Senate report.

There's nothing like a slimey paid apologist for a corrupt fascist regime getting his comeuppance.

UPDATE: Thanks to Chefen for reminding me of this. Here's Russell Brown praising Galloway's "performance" in front of the Senate committee (which in hindsight may actually have been setting Galloway up to perjure himself):
There are quite a number of reasons to dislike the expelled British Labour MP George Galloway, but it's hard not to admire the rhetorical flourish of his testimony this week to a US senate committee. He really did, as the Americans say, hand Senator Norm Coleman his ass. One Good Move has a particularly fluent excerpt, and also a Hardball interview with Coleman (who seems to have trouble speaking in sentences) and then Galloway.
Brown's dislike for Galloway is apparently easily outweighed by his dislike for Republican Senators.

Posted by Antarctic Lemur | 10/29/2005 08:06:00 am


Blogger Chefen said...

About the only good use for tax laws is impounding gangsters who slither their way round everything else.

10/29/2005 08:15:00 am  
Blogger Chris said...

Is he really an apologist for a corrupt fascist regime?

Didn't he say that he met Saddam exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him?

10/29/2005 02:05:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

You may noticed under Rumsfeld's third term as Defense Sec, Saddam was removed forcibly from power and is now facing trial by his own people for his crimes. On the other hand Galloway remained an unrepetent supporter of Saddam up to about... now.

Can you catch the difference? Or are you simply testing our ability to explain the obvious (again)?

Should we add a category of moderation called "Devil's Advocate" just for you?

10/29/2005 02:12:00 pm  
Blogger Chris said...

On what do you base saying Galloway was an unrepentent supporter of Saddam's? I thought he was against the sanctions because they hurt the Iraqi people and not Saddam - which is hard to argue with, and against the invasion because so many innocent people would die - again, something that has happened. If you can show me something that proves that he "supports" Saddam then I will shut up.

And Saddam was removed in Rumsfeld's third term, I take it that excuses what happened during his first and second terms?

10/29/2005 02:58:00 pm  
Blogger fm said...

Honest men would have no problems disagreeing with the different ways put forward to deal with a dictator, Roger. No worries at all about that -- perfectly valid points. But honest men would have trouble coming up with good reasons why a man would take money (oil vouchers) from a dictator and then lie about. Over to you...

10/29/2005 03:36:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home