Is Galloway A Crook?

Are you going to source that assertion, or just baselessly claim that the wide-ranging UN probe only includes Galloway because there is some all-encompassing US conspiracy to set-him-up and "smear" him, because they apparently have nothing else to do with their time...

i agree with everythin u have said in this convo

what was that stuff Georgey was calling them, "lickspittles and trotskites" or something like that, LMAO. I dont think they like each other.

Yeah, of course, no "scandal" or "corruption" surrounding him, at all...

Why would he attack the Senate committee if he had done something wrong? Knowing that they would investigate.

What? He attacked the Senate Committee once they already WERE investigating him, it would've been a bit late.
Secondly, he attacked them because it was far easier to launch off on his own tirades and accuse them of things than it was to actually answer the questions or properly respond to the accusations.
Now he's apparently been caught out lying, which is not a surprise, considering his performance.

Well, if I could actually access the article...

Anyway, as far as I have seen, there has been no evidence that the evidence the Senators used were false in any way. Similarly, interestingly enough the veracity of the documents the Telegraph used was never challenged by Galloways's lawyers...

He successfully "smeared" himself in my mind. Knowing what I do about the man, I find it easy to believe that he'd have done what he's accused of.

http://channels.aolsvc.co.uk/news/article.adp?id=20051029024009990001

Now this should be an unbiased source (aol) and it says here that the evidence the senator used against george was false.

...
Seriously, you have got to learn what a QUOTATION is.
It does not say that the evidence was false, it reports that OTHER PEOPLE said it was false. The "neutral source" is reporting the claims of what is a very biased party, not saying from a neutral view that the evidence was false.
Seriously, do you not like... know how news works?

And anyway, I've been reading up on the interviews with Aziz. Apparently the first time they spoke to him he made a number of admissions regarding oil allocations to Galloway, this is both according to the Senate committee and the UN. However, in the second interview, Aziz had learned (probably through his lawyer) that his testimony may form part of a prosecution, and so tried to change his story and retract. Now Aziz, the lawyers and Galloway-fans are all denying that anything was said.
And for once, the UN and the US Senate are in agreement...

You are making exactly the same sort of assumptions yourself!

And what do you know of this man, personally?

Galloway? Apart from him being an immoral, terrorist-supporting, philandering, corrupt, traitorous ass?

"No, you are!"
Seriously, can your side not to any better than playground responses, it seems to be your standard recourse these days...

And how is he terrorist supporting - these days people resort to insults without evidence... Please provide a source which says Galloway supports terrorists - oh wait you cant...

mine was a playground response and your jibes at galloway wernt?

sorry i thought you were being serious about this, i dont have a 'side.'

How can you talk about not being childsih when all you are really interested in is protecting your 'side,' hardly an adult way to look at a discussion. Are you an mp? lol sorry. just joking

There is no point having a discussion with someone who has a 'side' because they'll never leave it for the truth.