Subscribemost americans are just dying to fillatiate Karl RoveWhat is that word supposed to be?
"Keeping in mind the wingnut rants about Newsweek, let's take a look at the GOP allegations against Britsh MP George Galloway. Galloway was so vocal in his criticism of (new) Labour and their poodle Tony Blair that he was thrown out of the Labour party. (Galloway recently won his seat again in Parliament.) The British MP came to DC today with a backbone that Washington hasn't seen in years, standing up to the bullies who have publicly dragged his name through the mud using quality sources from the puppet government in Iraq. Apparently ideas such as innocent until proven guilty are out of fashion these days in Washington but what the hell, the GOP is throwing away other silly traditions such as minority rights so why not just toss the whole thing into the garbage dump while they're at it.
I have no idea if any of the allegations against Galloway are true or false but in the America that I once knew we used to be innocent until proven guilty. I also know that the Rupert Murdoch rag in the UK, the Daily Telegraph lost a $1.4M libel suit to Galloway last year when they tried making similar allegations. Looking at the lot we propped up in Iraq such as Chalabi (yes, he's baaaaccckkk) I seriously have my doubts. How about we just try it the old fashioned way and deliver proper evidence instead of having just more GOP-run lynch mob smear campaigns?" [AMERICAblog | May 17, 2005]
"I am on the anti-imperialist left." The Stalinist left? "I wouldn't define it that way because of the pejoratives loaded around it; that would be making a rod for your own back. If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe."
"On April 22, 2003, the Daily Telegraph published documents which had been found by its reporter David Blair in the ruins of the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. The documents purport to be records of meetings between Galloway and Iraqi intelligence agents, and state that he had received £375,000 per year from the proceeds of the Oil for Food programme [2]. Galloway completely denied the story, insisting that the documents were forgeries, and pointing to the questionable nature of the discovery within an unguarded bombed-out building. He instigated legal action against the newspaper, which was heard in the High Court from November 14, 2004 (HQ03X0206, George Galloway MP vs Telegraph Group Ltd.) On December 2, Justice David Eady ruled that the story had been 'seriously defamatory', and that the Telegraph was 'obliged to compensate Mr Galloway... and to make an award for the purposes of restoring his reputation'. Galloway was awarded £150,000 damages plus costs estimated to total £1.2 million. In UK libel cases, the winning party is also normally awarded costs, with the loser paying the bill. The court did not grant leave to appeal; in order to appeal in the absence of leave, the defendants would have to petition the House of Lords.
This was regarded by both sides as an important test of the Reynolds qualified-privilege defence [3]. Without claiming justification (a defence in which the defendant bears the onus of proving that the defamatory reports are true), the paper sought to argue that it acted responsibly because the allegations it reported were of sufficient public interest to outweigh the damage caused to Galloway's reputation. However, the court ruled that 'It was the defendants' primary case that their coverage was no more than 'neutral reportage' ...but the nature, content and tone of their coverage cannot be so described.'
The Christian Science Monitor also published a story on April 25, 2003 stating that they had documentary evidence that he had received 'more than ten million dollars' from the Iraqi regime. However, on June 20, 2003, the Monitor admitted that the documents it held were forgeries and apologised to Galloway. Galloway rejected the newspaper's apology, asserted that the affair was a conspiracy against him, and continued a libel claim against the paper. The Christian Science Monitor settled the claim, paying him an undisclosed sum in damages, on March 19, 2004. Galloway accepts libel damages. [Answers.com]
Is it on the news? Is it being talked about? Did anybody watch it?
posted by fullerine at 1:10 PM on May 17, 2005