• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Let's talk about the George Galloway ownage of Norm Coleman

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seriously was that not the best spectacle of political showmanship in the last 50 years?


"Now, I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer, you're remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice," he told Coleman.

Owned 1

"In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Air Base [Afghanistan], in Guantanamo Bay -- including, if I may say, British citizens being held in those places -- I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances," he said.

Owned 2


I think the biggest stinker of the lot is the realization the the US got 75% of all that oil for food oil. I think it's high time we start looking in the mirror on that one.
 

Crandle

Member
Yeah, it's pretty sad that Coleman was outfoxed by a living shit like Galloway. If only the Senators were still elected by state legislators. It'd be stuffier, more "aristocratic" and probably a lot more intelligent.
 
Interesting; too bad it's little more than showboating for the cameras. ("Hi, mom! Look at your smart boy!")

I just want the guilty people exposed and out of office/jobs; this kind of dickwaving and strawman-spewing in these congressional hearings doesn't get that done.
 
Coleman is pathetic. Galloway obliterated the rubber faced smoothie of the Republican ranks. :lol :lol

NormColeman.jpg


2410geob.jpg
 
The thing that killed me is that the guy wants to fly Galloway out here and make all these arrangements so he can show how confident he is and after Galloway owns his ass he has the nevre to say Galloway isn't a credible witness.

Well you are the one who invited him over, you should have thought about that. It doesn't make you a credible investigator.
 

vangace

Member
I love the brits man, they do live debates not the ones we have here were senators are already given questions in advantage. I have watched bbc and they have showed Tony Blair get booed in the parliament. :lol
 
Crandle said:
Yeah, it's pretty sad that Coleman was outfoxed by a living shit like Galloway. If only the Senators were still elected by state legislators. It'd be stuffier, more "aristocratic" and probably a lot more intelligent.

What is the British view of Galloway? Is this kind of like those Ali G skits where the unassuming person wasn't aware of what the person could do?
 

Piecake

Member
It was a sad day when Paul Wellstone died because that is the only reason why this dumbass is a senator right now.
 
What have our conservative friends had to say about Mr. Galloway. They have been conspicously absent in this thread. Surely there is some dirt to be thrown out.
 

Macam

Banned
Allow me to drop in some links for those who missed this, courtesy of C&L:

WMV:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/msnbc_uk_galloway_blisters_us_on_iraq_050517-01b.wmv

MP3:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/msnbc_uk_galloway_blisters_us_on_iraq_050517-01.mp3

Real: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/msnbc_uk_galloway_blisters_us_on_iraq_050517-01.rm.ram

I admittedly know nothing about Galloway, but regardless of his own background, he rightfully called out the administration and it's a damn shame Democrats or moderate Republicans haven't been this publicly scathing. I'm weary of the puppets like Coleman, Frist, and Allen and it's high time that there's increasing vocal opposition. As it stands, a recent report from Yahoo! News yesterday noted that the war costs may now exceed $300b following a newly passed law by the Senate, that futhermore bans women from direct combat units (which was scaled back from further limitations on women in the Army, who constitute about 20% of the forces in question).
 
Macam said:
a newly passed law by the Senate, that futhermore bans women from direct combat units (which was scaled back from further limitations on women in the Army, who constitute about 20% of the forces in question).


Which is bullshit women in war is here and now. Iraq and any war after it is not going to have a front and a rear we get attacks from all over. Especially with declining recruitment rates America needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Women are here, they can shoot and they can fight and they are going to find themselves in a host of combat situation during our visit to Iraq.

They don't have a choice.
 

Macam

Banned
Here's the original article I'm referring to: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050519/ap_on_go_co/defense_bill_women

And here's an excerpt:

The language would put into law a Pentagon policy from 1994 that prohibits female troops in all four service branches from serving in units below brigade level whose primary mission is direct ground combat.

"Many Americans feel that women in combat or combat support positions is not a bridge we want to cross at this point," said Rep. John McHugh (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., who sponsored the amendment.

It also allows the Pentagon to further exclude women from units in other instances, while requiring defense officials to get congressional approval when opening up positions to women. The amendment replaced language in the bill that applied only to the Army and banned women from some combat support positions.

The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps currently operate under a 10-year-old policy that prohibits women from "direct combat on the ground" but allows the services discretion to open some jobs to women in combat as needed.

"We're not taking away a single prerogative that the services now have," McHugh said.

He said the provision would not cause any jobs to be closed today that are open to women and he said it wouldn't yank women out of roles in which they currently are serving. He said it simply requires more oversight of the role of women in the military.

Democrats opposed the amendment, saying it would tie the hands of commanders who need flexibility during wartime. They accused Republicans of rushing through legislation without knowing the consequences or getting input from the military, and tried unsuccessfully to pass their own amendments to kill McHugh's provision.

I find all this unnecessary and potentially debilitating. Army recruiters are currently bending rules to meet quotas, and the ground reports from commanders in Iraq, as noted earlier today by the NYT, is that the situation isn't improving enough to where we can begin withdrawing troops (surprise!). There's no real reason to further limit women's opportunities, particularly when we're talking about strained national security and military resources, save for some far right-wing peddling to an extremely conservative voting base.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom