Sunday, May 22, 2005


Galloway Senate testimony PDF goes AWOL

`The website for the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs has removed testimony from UK MP George Galloway from its website.

All other witness testimonies for the hearings on the Oil for Food scandal are available on the Committee’s website in PDF form. But Galloway’s testimony is the only document not on the site. [..]

“I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him,” Galloway told the Committee.

“The difference is that Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns.”

Press representatives for the Committee had no comment.’

I’m suprised they even put it up in the first place. The censors were obviously busy covering up something else at the time. Followup to the Galloway video I posted earlier.

2 Responses to “Galloway Senate testimony PDF goes AWOL”

  1. Zack Says:

    The Senate did not censor Mr. Galloway. It provided him with a microphone and a stage.

    The Subcommittee did not remove Mr. Galloway’s testimony from it’s website, the testimony was never there.

    The Subcommittee website had only a hearing ANNOUNCEMENT, which was completed before the hearing, and contained statements of witnesses submitted BEFORE the hearing. Mr. Galloway did not submit a statement prior to the hearing.

    Mr. Galloway’s testimony is very much a part of the official record, and will be published by the Government Printing Office. The Federal News Service has already published an unofficial transcript which is available on Lexis.

    Video of the hearing, including Mr. Galloway’s testimony, is available on the Subcommittee website.

  2. moonbuggy Says:

    The article refers to the PDF of the testimony going missing, not the video.

    There are a whole bunch of news articles reporting the removal of the PDF whilst all the other PDFs were retained.

    It seems strange to me that this testimony would be singled out and removed. Tho, considering the fairly blunt statements Mr Galloway made and the Bush administration’s typical reaction to negative publicity it’s probably not all that surprising, imho.

    I haven’t checked the subcommittee website myself, because browsing around US government websites isn’t something I particularly enjoy doing. I assume the various news sources reporting the story had verified this however.

Leave a Reply