Bring it on
October 25, 2005 7:45 AM Subscribe
"Because I publicly humiliated this lick-spittle senator Norman Coleman..." Storming Norm Coleman just doesn't know when to stop. He has aired new claims against George Galloway. Galloway, not surprisingly, has fought back, begging to be charged with perjury. Earlier was certainly entertaining, get some popcorn for this round. And get ready for even more uses of the word lickspittle.
Does keeping this "story" alive benefit Galloway or Coleman's political future more?
posted by Pollomacho at 10:57 AM EST on October 25 [!]
Both. Incidentally, does anyone have any info on the substance, or lack thereof, of these new claims?
posted by unreason at 8:01 AM on October 25, 2005
posted by Pollomacho at 10:57 AM EST on October 25 [!]
Both. Incidentally, does anyone have any info on the substance, or lack thereof, of these new claims?
posted by unreason at 8:01 AM on October 25, 2005
To hyphenate or not to hyphenate: that is the question.
posted by alumshubby at 8:02 AM on October 25, 2005
posted by alumshubby at 8:02 AM on October 25, 2005
It benefits the word lickspittle.
When I heard this story and Galloway spewing forth on the radio this morning, it made me wonder if either side has nothing better to do than get into a pissing match. I guess it helps distract from real issues.
posted by SteveInMaine at 8:03 AM on October 25, 2005
When I heard this story and Galloway spewing forth on the radio this morning, it made me wonder if either side has nothing better to do than get into a pissing match. I guess it helps distract from real issues.
posted by SteveInMaine at 8:03 AM on October 25, 2005
I mean, the transatlantic love is really showing these days. (I've sort of had enough of Phelps, so I kept this one out of the post)
posted by allen.spaulding at 8:08 AM on October 25, 2005
posted by allen.spaulding at 8:08 AM on October 25, 2005
We need ten more just like Galloway - playing hardball, holding forth magnificently against the war, and beating the Right at its own vicious game. What's more, Galloway's done more against terrorism than Tony Blair or anybody else, by encouraging disenfranchised Muslims to vote against the war.
posted by By The Grace of God at 8:16 AM on October 25, 2005
posted by By The Grace of God at 8:16 AM on October 25, 2005
Galloway is a nasty wee shyster, who'll jump on any bandwagon to serve his own ends.
What we need is honest decent people to make the case against war. Not George Galloway.
posted by johnny novak at 8:23 AM on October 25, 2005
What we need is honest decent people to make the case against war. Not George Galloway.
posted by johnny novak at 8:23 AM on October 25, 2005
I know nothing about Galloway's truth or innocence. But because of his stances, there seems to be an odd dichotomy about him. The Right insists on his guilt, because they hate him. The Left insists on his innocence, because he's on their side. What I'd like to know is whether, putting politics aside, the accusations are true or not.
posted by unreason at 8:26 AM on October 25, 2005
posted by unreason at 8:26 AM on October 25, 2005
unreason writes "I know nothing about Galloway's truth or innocence. But because of his stances, there seems to be an odd dichotomy about him. The Right insists on his guilt, because they hate him. The Left insists on his innocence, because he's on their side. What I'd like to know is whether, putting politics aside, the accusations are true or not."
Me too!
posted by OmieWise at 8:30 AM on October 25, 2005
Me too!
posted by OmieWise at 8:30 AM on October 25, 2005
Oh, but what I meant to add was that I see that kind of knowledge as pretty hard to come by in this current political climate.
posted by OmieWise at 8:31 AM on October 25, 2005
posted by OmieWise at 8:31 AM on October 25, 2005
The various accusations have been rebutted over and over again, and Galloway has won libel suits against British papers over them. When Galloway was invited to Congress to testify about the accusations, he rebutted them and used the stand as a bully pulpit to criticize the war.
posted by By The Grace of God at 8:33 AM on October 25, 2005
posted by By The Grace of God at 8:33 AM on October 25, 2005
The various accusations have been rebutted over and over again, and Galloway has won libel suits against British papers over them
I know. If you read the articles, you will see that Mr. Galloway's opponents claim to have new evidence. It was regarding this that I was asking my question.
posted by unreason at 8:36 AM on October 25, 2005
I know. If you read the articles, you will see that Mr. Galloway's opponents claim to have new evidence. It was regarding this that I was asking my question.
posted by unreason at 8:36 AM on October 25, 2005
Well I can't find the report on the committee's report page, but Galloway seems to be begging them to bring a prosecution against him. Coleman claimed to introduce new evidence in the May hearing, and what he had were English translations of documents supposedly seized by GIs when they entered Saddam's palaces. Galloway questioned the translations and cited a Christian Science Monitor retraction of Iraqi documents on Galloway that they had cited, because the CSM discovered they were forgeries.
I would love to read the report if anybody can find it - to see what sort of evidence Coleman claims to have uncovered.
posted by By The Grace of God at 8:47 AM on October 25, 2005
I would love to read the report if anybody can find it - to see what sort of evidence Coleman claims to have uncovered.
posted by By The Grace of God at 8:47 AM on October 25, 2005
"you will see that Mr. Galloway's opponents claim to have new evidence."
These are the same people who had "evidence" that there were WMD's leading up to the war, "evidence" that John Kerry wasn't really a war hero, "evidence" that Hillary Clinton was involved in the death of Vince Foster, and "evidence" that Bill Clinton was running a cocaine smuggling operation out of an Arkansas airport.
Norm Coleman is a lying piece of shit. His minions and his aplogists here on mefi are the lowest form of scum.
Bring it on, indeed.
posted by 2sheets at 8:48 AM on October 25, 2005
These are the same people who had "evidence" that there were WMD's leading up to the war, "evidence" that John Kerry wasn't really a war hero, "evidence" that Hillary Clinton was involved in the death of Vince Foster, and "evidence" that Bill Clinton was running a cocaine smuggling operation out of an Arkansas airport.
Norm Coleman is a lying piece of shit. His minions and his aplogists here on mefi are the lowest form of scum.
Bring it on, indeed.
posted by 2sheets at 8:48 AM on October 25, 2005
I know. If you read the articles, you will see that Mr. Galloway's opponents claim to have new evidence. It was regarding this that I was asking my question.
Galloway would be a complete idiot to refute these charges as voraciously as he does, were he not confident that he was innocent of any charges. That's what I reckon anyway.
i find it very hard to like the man but I also find it hard not to admire him for stirring the shit when it needs stirred the most. Looking forward to seeing him at the Belfast Festival next week. Really hope these new events don't prompt him to cancel.
posted by twistedonion at 8:51 AM on October 25, 2005
Galloway would be a complete idiot to refute these charges as voraciously as he does, were he not confident that he was innocent of any charges. That's what I reckon anyway.
i find it very hard to like the man but I also find it hard not to admire him for stirring the shit when it needs stirred the most. Looking forward to seeing him at the Belfast Festival next week. Really hope these new events don't prompt him to cancel.
posted by twistedonion at 8:51 AM on October 25, 2005
As far as I'm concerned, Coleman and Galloway can saw off one another's limbs with cheese graters.
posted by kickingtheground at 8:58 AM on October 25, 2005
posted by kickingtheground at 8:58 AM on October 25, 2005
To hyphenate or not to hyphenate: that is the question
OED has a hyphen BTW. I lovin' this word...
posted by fluffycreature at 9:10 AM on October 25, 2005
OED has a hyphen BTW. I lovin' this word...
posted by fluffycreature at 9:10 AM on October 25, 2005
From what I can tell, these new claims aren't particularly noteworthy. Galloway previously admitted that his astranged wife was a paid employee of the Miriam appeal, and that they paid her salary, covered their travel expenses on behalf of the group, etc.
Galloway also admitted that the fund spent £200,000 on a Big Ben-to-Baghdad double decker bus publicity trip and £60,000 on a sanctions-busting flight to Baghdad, as well as visits by Galloway and his staff to the region. While you may disagree with the need for such expenses, what isn't seen in all of this is clear evidence of any great profit paid for by 23,000,000 barrels of Iraqi oil. Sounds more like a lot of political activist work, frankly.
It's interesting that the same Republicans that want to bust Galloway for perjury for supposedly knowing his wife profited from money that was indirectly from Iraq despite any real proof, are the same ones saying that perjury charges against Rove, Libby, etc. would just be "technicalities".
posted by insomnia_lj at 9:19 AM on October 25, 2005
Galloway also admitted that the fund spent £200,000 on a Big Ben-to-Baghdad double decker bus publicity trip and £60,000 on a sanctions-busting flight to Baghdad, as well as visits by Galloway and his staff to the region. While you may disagree with the need for such expenses, what isn't seen in all of this is clear evidence of any great profit paid for by 23,000,000 barrels of Iraqi oil. Sounds more like a lot of political activist work, frankly.
It's interesting that the same Republicans that want to bust Galloway for perjury for supposedly knowing his wife profited from money that was indirectly from Iraq despite any real proof, are the same ones saying that perjury charges against Rove, Libby, etc. would just be "technicalities".
posted by insomnia_lj at 9:19 AM on October 25, 2005
I was going to say something, but the "cheese grater" quip sucked the words right out of me.
Even though I disagree I also think that's one of the best one liners I've heard in a long time.
posted by troutfishing at 9:21 AM on October 25, 2005
Even though I disagree I also think that's one of the best one liners I've heard in a long time.
posted by troutfishing at 9:21 AM on October 25, 2005
Galloway is a nasty wee shyster, who'll jump on any bandwagon to serve his own ends.
What we need is honest decent people to make the case against war. Not George Galloway.
posted by johnny novak at 11:23 AM EST on October 25 [!]
We need a decent honest person to use Galloway's vocabulary. The same vim and verve would help a hell of lot, too.
posted by Busithoth at 9:23 AM on October 25, 2005
What we need is honest decent people to make the case against war. Not George Galloway.
posted by johnny novak at 11:23 AM EST on October 25 [!]
We need a decent honest person to use Galloway's vocabulary. The same vim and verve would help a hell of lot, too.
posted by Busithoth at 9:23 AM on October 25, 2005
What we need is honest decent people to make the case against war. Not George Galloway.
Galloway's purpose isn't to make the case against the war. An honest person like that would be ground down by people trying to invent accusations of treason. Amateur grandstanders like Coleman need to be taken down by professionals like Galloway. And when it happens, it's a thing of beauty.
posted by deanc at 9:28 AM on October 25, 2005
Galloway's purpose isn't to make the case against the war. An honest person like that would be ground down by people trying to invent accusations of treason. Amateur grandstanders like Coleman need to be taken down by professionals like Galloway. And when it happens, it's a thing of beauty.
posted by deanc at 9:28 AM on October 25, 2005
The documents were found by a "journalist" with the Telegraph. Richard Perle, was on the board of the paper,the documents are forgeries,TheTelegraph was sued.The Niger documents were also forgeries,welcome to the Neocon State of America,creating reality for you.
posted by hortense at 9:51 AM on October 25, 2005
posted by hortense at 9:51 AM on October 25, 2005
Galloway wields the English language like no one else who's graced a Senate courtroom in a very long time. I think this is great -- regardless of the motivations, having Coleman & Co shut down so handily and with such class is absolutely beautiful to watch. Even so, I don't suspect Galloway's motivations that much. I certainly haven't heard him tell a lie yet. (Of course, I'm a Canadian in the US, so I'm bound to love everyone who criticizes America.)
posted by blacklite at 10:24 AM on October 25, 2005
posted by blacklite at 10:24 AM on October 25, 2005
Coleman is the Senator of the state I live in. And while I know nothing about Galloway I do know Coleman is a jerk of the highest order. He is one of the "family values" candidates about whom it is a widely known "secret" in St. Paul, that he carries on with a mistress and who's family tends to stay out-of-state. Having an affair should not immediately disqualify you from public office. but espousing the sanctity of marriage and having a mistress, well there is a nice H word for that.
posted by edgeways at 10:30 AM on October 25, 2005
posted by edgeways at 10:30 AM on October 25, 2005
Weird that the Repubs would keep the oil for food thing alive, given how many American businessmen and likely party donors were involved, and now being busted.
posted by bardic at 10:40 AM on October 25, 2005
posted by bardic at 10:40 AM on October 25, 2005
bardoc, the details of that whole narrative will be the albatross around Coleman's campaign for re-election. That and getting handed your balls in front of your commission is kind of damaging, too.
If you're vulnerable to external stimuli.
posted by Busithoth at 10:46 AM on October 25, 2005
If you're vulnerable to external stimuli.
posted by Busithoth at 10:46 AM on October 25, 2005
I distinctly remember Mr. Galloway performance at the US Senate as one of the funniest videos of the year. On that occasion, Mr. Coleman proved beyond reasonable doubt to be dumb as a door. That he chooses to pursue the matter even further make me wonder if he has some masochistic tendencies. We can only hope the next episodes are as good as the first one.
posted by nkyad at 11:35 AM on October 25, 2005
posted by nkyad at 11:35 AM on October 25, 2005
Your accusation, edgeways, is interesting. Politically I may think he's a douche, but my wife grew up and was friends with with his daughter here in the Virginia suburban public schools and thus I have come to know the family. I have never heard or seen any evidence of this at all. True or not, maybe, but I've never seen or heard anything of the kind.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:43 AM on October 25, 2005
posted by Pollomacho at 11:43 AM on October 25, 2005
If Norm does invite George again, I'm going to DC again to watch, and let's have a MeFi meetup.
posted by By The Grace of God at 11:47 AM on October 25, 2005
posted by By The Grace of God at 11:47 AM on October 25, 2005
What I'd like to know is whether, putting politics aside, the accusations are true or not.
What does Galloway have to do to prove his innocence? He has proven it time and time again (in and out of court), refuted every charge, received damages against newspapers, challenged anyone who says otherwise to take him to court - and still people like you ask if he is innocent.
posted by bobbyelliott at 11:48 AM on October 25, 2005
What does Galloway have to do to prove his innocence? He has proven it time and time again (in and out of court), refuted every charge, received damages against newspapers, challenged anyone who says otherwise to take him to court - and still people like you ask if he is innocent.
posted by bobbyelliott at 11:48 AM on October 25, 2005
He has proven it time and time again (in and out of court)
No, as I read the accounts what he proved was that some of the news stories about him were libelous. That does not necessarily prove him innocent, nor does it cast guilt.
refuted every charge
These are new charges. They have not been disproven.
and still people like you ask if he is innocent.
I ask if he is innocent, because unlike most here, I don't care what his political positions are, I want to know what he did or did not do. If wanting to know the truth displeases you, then I find no reason not to incurr your displeasure.
posted by unreason at 11:58 AM on October 25, 2005
No, as I read the accounts what he proved was that some of the news stories about him were libelous. That does not necessarily prove him innocent, nor does it cast guilt.
refuted every charge
These are new charges. They have not been disproven.
and still people like you ask if he is innocent.
I ask if he is innocent, because unlike most here, I don't care what his political positions are, I want to know what he did or did not do. If wanting to know the truth displeases you, then I find no reason not to incurr your displeasure.
posted by unreason at 11:58 AM on October 25, 2005
I thought the Channel 4 report and interview tonight was pretty hostile.
posted by Edame at 12:02 PM on October 25, 2005
posted by Edame at 12:02 PM on October 25, 2005
These are new charges. They have not been disproven.
Shouldn't have to be "disproven."
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Unless you want to "disprove" that you beat your spouse/whomever regularly to all us here at MeFi. In that case, we're waiting anxiously.
posted by nofundy at 12:13 PM on October 25, 2005
Shouldn't have to be "disproven."
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Unless you want to "disprove" that you beat your spouse/whomever regularly to all us here at MeFi. In that case, we're waiting anxiously.
posted by nofundy at 12:13 PM on October 25, 2005
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
I didn't say that they did have to be disproven. I was responding to bobbyelliott, who had said that Galloway had proven his innocence. As for me, I just would like to be able to ask what the truth of the matter is without getting jumped on and accused of being a neo-con. Being against Bush doesn't mean ignoring any controversies surrounding his opponents. The fact that Bush and friends are corrupt does not mean that his opponents are pure as the driven snow. And it would be the height of hypocracy to investigate corruption in our enemies while ignoring it in our friends.
posted by unreason at 12:20 PM on October 25, 2005
I didn't say that they did have to be disproven. I was responding to bobbyelliott, who had said that Galloway had proven his innocence. As for me, I just would like to be able to ask what the truth of the matter is without getting jumped on and accused of being a neo-con. Being against Bush doesn't mean ignoring any controversies surrounding his opponents. The fact that Bush and friends are corrupt does not mean that his opponents are pure as the driven snow. And it would be the height of hypocracy to investigate corruption in our enemies while ignoring it in our friends.
posted by unreason at 12:20 PM on October 25, 2005
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
I didn't say that they did have to be disproven. I was responding to bobbyelliott, who had said that Galloway had proven his innocence. As for me, I just would like to be able to ask what the truth of the matter is without getting jumped on and accused of being a neo-con. Being against Bush doesn't mean ignoring any controversies surrounding his opponents. The fact that Bush and friends are corrupt does not mean that his opponents are pure as the driven snow. And it would be the height of hypocracy to investigate corruption in our enemies while ignoring it in our friends. But, of course, since I question whether Galloway is a candidate for sainthood, I must be some evil righty.
posted by unreason at 12:22 PM on October 25, 2005
I didn't say that they did have to be disproven. I was responding to bobbyelliott, who had said that Galloway had proven his innocence. As for me, I just would like to be able to ask what the truth of the matter is without getting jumped on and accused of being a neo-con. Being against Bush doesn't mean ignoring any controversies surrounding his opponents. The fact that Bush and friends are corrupt does not mean that his opponents are pure as the driven snow. And it would be the height of hypocracy to investigate corruption in our enemies while ignoring it in our friends. But, of course, since I question whether Galloway is a candidate for sainthood, I must be some evil righty.
posted by unreason at 12:22 PM on October 25, 2005
Your accusation, edgeways, is interesting. Politically I may think he's a douche, but my wife grew up and was friends with with his daughter here in the Virginia suburban public schools and thus I have come to know the family. I have never heard or seen any evidence of this at all. True or not, maybe, but I've never seen or heard anything of the kind.
I can't really verify edgeways' statement, but it's certainly one that you hear a lot in the Twin Cities-- might be totally untrue, but it's very widespread. A friend of mine has seen Big Norm pretty shamelessly hitting on women at a fancy bar in St. Paul.
posted by COBRA! at 12:50 PM on October 25, 2005
I can't really verify edgeways' statement, but it's certainly one that you hear a lot in the Twin Cities-- might be totally untrue, but it's very widespread. A friend of mine has seen Big Norm pretty shamelessly hitting on women at a fancy bar in St. Paul.
posted by COBRA! at 12:50 PM on October 25, 2005
Again, the burden of proof lies with Coleman and his cronies, not with Galloway to disprove spurious charges.
Until then, it would be the height of hypocrisy to assume Galloway is guilty just because he tilts to the left very steeply.
See how your argument goes both ways you evil righty?
posted by nofundy at 1:05 PM on October 25, 2005
Until then, it would be the height of hypocrisy to assume Galloway is guilty just because he tilts to the left very steeply.
See how your argument goes both ways you evil righty?
posted by nofundy at 1:05 PM on October 25, 2005
Sigh. Nofundy, I'm only going to say this once more, since it's obvious that you'd prefer not to listen. I am not accusing Galloway. I neither believe nor disbelieve in his guilt or innocence. I just want to know what the truth is. If you can't accept that, fine. But you might as well cut it out with the Bush-esque "if you're not with me, you're against me" rhetoric.
posted by unreason at 1:10 PM on October 25, 2005
posted by unreason at 1:10 PM on October 25, 2005
On the Norm Coleman mistress thing: Garrison Keillor on Salon (sorry no link) had a pretty scathing essay about him and his "hobbies" and living arrangements with his wife. There are other stories floating around him and "young" women so even apolitical me has heard about them.
On a different note, Coleman has a very good staff who respond quickly and make sure that their man is always available to the media. Unlike Mark Dayton and his staff who could not be bothered to reply to letters or get their man in the press in a positive way.
posted by jadepearl at 1:43 PM on October 25, 2005
On a different note, Coleman has a very good staff who respond quickly and make sure that their man is always available to the media. Unlike Mark Dayton and his staff who could not be bothered to reply to letters or get their man in the press in a positive way.
posted by jadepearl at 1:43 PM on October 25, 2005
I neither believe nor disbelieve in his guilt or innocence.
And that's why some people have a problem with your views.
There are lots of reasons to presume him innocent (his successful court case, his performance at the Senate, his continual challenge to everyone to produce evidence against him etc etc etc) but absolutely no reason to believe him guilty. So why your ambivalence?
Is it fair of me to accuse you of something without a shred of evidence and for someone to then say that they "neither believe nor disbelieve" your guilt?
posted by bobbyelliott at 3:32 PM on October 25, 2005
And that's why some people have a problem with your views.
There are lots of reasons to presume him innocent (his successful court case, his performance at the Senate, his continual challenge to everyone to produce evidence against him etc etc etc) but absolutely no reason to believe him guilty. So why your ambivalence?
Is it fair of me to accuse you of something without a shred of evidence and for someone to then say that they "neither believe nor disbelieve" your guilt?
posted by bobbyelliott at 3:32 PM on October 25, 2005
boy that clip with Galloway clip just reminds us how much the british press loves to hold politicians feet to the fire. I certainly don't think the UK is some happy land of decent politicians because of it, but jesus wouldn't it be great if somebody with that kind of attitude would interview tom delay....
posted by lumpenprole at 4:31 PM on October 25, 2005
posted by lumpenprole at 4:31 PM on October 25, 2005
lumpenprole, that will never happen, because by American standards, doing so is MEAN.
Which doesn't mean the Galloway isn't a RAT FINK; just that in the US, you only catch wind of someone blowing up later in the process.
Go Norm, Go!
posted by ParisParamus at 5:14 PM on October 25, 2005
Which doesn't mean the Galloway isn't a RAT FINK; just that in the US, you only catch wind of someone blowing up later in the process.
Go Norm, Go!
posted by ParisParamus at 5:14 PM on October 25, 2005
I can guarantee you that the average Minnesota voter, or even the active Minnesota voter doesn't give two fucks about George Galloway or even knows who he is or how he fits into the UN. But, the average Minnesota voter sure does like to see Norman pounding the gavel on television and giving it to the the UN.
posted by my sock puppet account at 5:46 PM on October 25, 2005
posted by my sock puppet account at 5:46 PM on October 25, 2005
The average US family has what now :
1.27 kids or something like that ?
posted by troutfishing at 10:11 PM on October 25, 2005
1.27 kids or something like that ?
posted by troutfishing at 10:11 PM on October 25, 2005
Quite unfair to unreason. He asked whether there was more information on the new charges, and received only multiple responses that the prior charges had been disproven.
I, too, am highly skeptical of this new "evidence", but I would also like to see it. Hitchens, for one, relished reading the report [here].
It appears that there is a money trail, although whether Galloway knowingly participated or was a dupe in a money-laundering scheme is less clear.
It is, of course, probably interesting to certain people in this thread that Chalabi was up to his elbows in this whole thing, too.
posted by dhartung at 12:25 AM on October 26, 2005
I, too, am highly skeptical of this new "evidence", but I would also like to see it. Hitchens, for one, relished reading the report [here].
It appears that there is a money trail, although whether Galloway knowingly participated or was a dupe in a money-laundering scheme is less clear.
It is, of course, probably interesting to certain people in this thread that Chalabi was up to his elbows in this whole thing, too.
posted by dhartung at 12:25 AM on October 26, 2005
(Whoops. Wrong Chalabi. There are so many of them.)
posted by dhartung at 2:19 AM on October 26, 2005
posted by dhartung at 2:19 AM on October 26, 2005
Hitchens is significantly offbase when he says flatout that Galloway solicited money, and that those who gave him a platform should admit that Galloway was bribed.
By Hitchens' own admission, the evidence is primarily from a former Saddam official turned U.S. detainee, who faces a potential death penalty if he doesn't make a deal. Since when did Tariq Aziz regain his credibility, anyway?
Really, Hitchens seems to think that the assumption of innocence only applies to the Bush administration. He should have the decency to wait until Galloway is actually charged with a crime before passing sentence.
If Galloway gets legal donations to his charity from a businessman who does business with some shady characters, that's a crime. If other politicians do the same, that's lobbying.
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:46 AM on October 26, 2005
By Hitchens' own admission, the evidence is primarily from a former Saddam official turned U.S. detainee, who faces a potential death penalty if he doesn't make a deal. Since when did Tariq Aziz regain his credibility, anyway?
Really, Hitchens seems to think that the assumption of innocence only applies to the Bush administration. He should have the decency to wait until Galloway is actually charged with a crime before passing sentence.
If Galloway gets legal donations to his charity from a businessman who does business with some shady characters, that's a crime. If other politicians do the same, that's lobbying.
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:46 AM on October 26, 2005
Yay dhartung for finding the report :)
posted by By The Grace of God at 5:18 AM on October 26, 2005
posted by By The Grace of God at 5:18 AM on October 26, 2005
I can guarantee you that the average Minnesota voter, or even the active Minnesota voter doesn't give two fucks about George Galloway or even knows who he is or how he fits into the UN. But, the average Minnesota voter sure does like to see Norman pounding the gavel on television and giving it to the the UN.
Um, no.
posted by COBRA! at 6:49 AM on October 26, 2005
Um, no.
posted by COBRA! at 6:49 AM on October 26, 2005
« Older "Shaft" in Chaucerian English | Night of the Hunter Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Pollomacho at 7:57 AM on October 25, 2005