On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:19:00 -0700 (PDT) Willy Greenfields
<filthydirtyunwashed at yahoo.com> writes:
>
> Pugliese forwarded:
>
> >Looking back, it is impossible to avoid the
> conclusion
> >that Mr Galloway's aggressive response to scrutiny is
> >nothing more than an unthinking, knee-jerk reaction.
>
> Bro, Galloway's not some grad student receiving
> criticism in a seminar. He's fighting for his life.
>
> Did he get oil money? I don't know. I don't think you
> have any evidence not available to me (I've finally
> figured this Google thing out). So why not suspend
> judgment until he is actually found guilty by a
> credible body (of course, it shouldn't be incumbent on
> an accused to prove their innocence, and previous
> accusers have been found against in civil courts)?
Let me see, a lot of the Senate subcommittee's report hangs on the willingness of officials like Tariq Aziz to authenticate documents. Now suppose you were in Aziz's shoes. You know that your former boss is on trial for his life and is almost certainly going to be found guilty and executed. You know that you may be facing a similar prospect in the near future too. What are you going to do? I suspect that at this point if Mr. Aziz were asked to authenticate documents concerning alleged payments to Michael P, Aziz would be more than willing to comply.
>
> You'll leap all over people on this list for citing
> someone whose book of a decade ago was blurbed by
> someone who referenced a Larouche rag article a decade
> earlier yet, and I believe you've flirted with the
> 'objectively pro-Saddamist' line in the past. I can
> understand your need for purity in the bloodlines of
> an argument or an idea (as a pathologist understands
> dwarfism, say). Are you exempting yourself from your
> own criteria or are you content with the fact that by
> your curious standards you are objectively
> pro-Coleman/Hitchens/Bush/Abu Ghraib by perpetuating
> these as yet unfounded charges?
>
>