Bluff, Bluster, and Blunder.
Wretchard finally takes a look at Galloway's testimony in front of the Senate investigation committee.
IMO, his take is a good one to read. The initial take of far too many pundits (this one included) was pessimistic, that Gorgeous George thrashed the committee and the committee is now chastened and humiliated. Wretchard's observations are very much different and as usual go beyond the first inch of surface.
When I read summaries and caught the one or two clips from TV I was disheartened (especially after receiving that note from Herod) about it all. I had correctly noted the reason for this was Mr. Galloway's debate school was much more abrasive than the one our legislative leaders go through. After all, if judging by the nature of the rhetoric, the insults and the show boating well the UK Parliamnet has no equal and Galloway is reputed to be one of their betters. So we will give Galloway the game when it comes to the TV of it, the style, the flashiness etc.
Though, Wretchard thinks the game was actually won by the committee.
Many people think because Senators Coleman and Levin didn't have cutesy answers or clever insults to return to George that George had the better of them. In the end we have to remember this is about bigger things than George Galloway, Wretchard, in the blog I am referring to, notes that George Galloway was never a man of significant influence. The thing though, is Galloway was on the edge of a cesspool that is the Oil for Food scandal and it seems Galloway most likely provided corrabative testimony.
We forget what is going on is more than just the exchange of school yard insult. Serious charges are being investigated and major amounts of money are in play here. George Galloway is not a major player just a lion. If our government turned around tomorrow and started to support the terrorists jihadists and Baathists, George Galloway would suddenly reverse course and support Iraq's duly elected government. George Galloway's approach can be stated on a bumper sticker "oppose the predominant paradigm".
Remember, keep you cool engaging in bluff and bluster way more often than not results in blunder. Senators Coleman and Levin did just that in they kept their cool in front of somebody relying on bluff and bluster.
IMO, his take is a good one to read. The initial take of far too many pundits (this one included) was pessimistic, that Gorgeous George thrashed the committee and the committee is now chastened and humiliated. Wretchard's observations are very much different and as usual go beyond the first inch of surface.
When I read summaries and caught the one or two clips from TV I was disheartened (especially after receiving that note from Herod) about it all. I had correctly noted the reason for this was Mr. Galloway's debate school was much more abrasive than the one our legislative leaders go through. After all, if judging by the nature of the rhetoric, the insults and the show boating well the UK Parliamnet has no equal and Galloway is reputed to be one of their betters. So we will give Galloway the game when it comes to the TV of it, the style, the flashiness etc.
Though, Wretchard thinks the game was actually won by the committee.
In the exchange above it is abundantly clear that both Coleman and Levin simply wanted to enter Galloway's denial of having discussed Oil for Food business with Tariq Aziz in the record. Levin immediately ends his questioning after eliciting Galloway's "Never". Coleman is content to merely establish that Aziz and Galloway were "friends" who had met "many times" before saying "I have no further questions of the witness".
Source: The Belmont Club - Gorgeous George GallowayMany people think because Senators Coleman and Levin didn't have cutesy answers or clever insults to return to George that George had the better of them. In the end we have to remember this is about bigger things than George Galloway, Wretchard, in the blog I am referring to, notes that George Galloway was never a man of significant influence. The thing though, is Galloway was on the edge of a cesspool that is the Oil for Food scandal and it seems Galloway most likely provided corrabative testimony.
We forget what is going on is more than just the exchange of school yard insult. Serious charges are being investigated and major amounts of money are in play here. George Galloway is not a major player just a lion. If our government turned around tomorrow and started to support the terrorists jihadists and Baathists, George Galloway would suddenly reverse course and support Iraq's duly elected government. George Galloway's approach can be stated on a bumper sticker "oppose the predominant paradigm".
Remember, keep you cool engaging in bluff and bluster way more often than not results in blunder. Senators Coleman and Levin did just that in they kept their cool in front of somebody relying on bluff and bluster.
posted by Marcus Aurelius at 7:46 PM
<< Home