George Galloway

[Rafiki]

Just heard George Galloway in front of the Senate Committee... The maverick politician is in good form. He mixed defending himself with good offensive moves as well. Liked the comparison between his two meetings with Saddam compared to those of Donald Rumsfeld.... and the accusation of the US companies plundering Iraq in the immediate months after the war... fascinating.

 

[limerickman]

Just heard George Galloway in front of the Senate Committee... The maverick politician is in good form. He mixed defending himself with good offensive moves as well. Liked the comparison between his two meetings with Saddam compared to those of Donald Rumsfeld.... and the accusation of the US companies plundering Iraq in the immediate months after the war... fascinating.

Superb performance by GG.

He wiped the floor with them.

 

[FredC]

Superb performance by GG.

He wiped the floor with them.

Why have we got three George Galloway sites. Can't you stick 'em together on the GG- I'd pay to see this. thread. It'll become a dogs breakfast.

 

[limerickman]

Why have we got three George Galloway sites. Can't you stick 'em together on the GG- I'd pay to see this. thread. It'll become a dogs breakfast.

They're all in the Soapbox - no movement required.

 

[zapper]

Just heard George Galloway in front of the Senate Committee... The maverick politician is in good form. He mixed defending himself with good offensive moves as well. Liked the comparison between his two meetings with Saddam compared to those of Donald Rumsfeld.... and the accusation of the US companies plundering Iraq in the immediate months after the war... fascinating.

His waffling doesn't negate the following...Oh, and I cut the list short to keep this concise...

1. Saddam Hussein's chief lieutenant, Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, confirmed in an interview with the subcommittee that Galloway received allocations.

2. In addition, as reflected in the poster presented now, Ramadan confirmed that Galloway was granted allocations, quote, "because of his opinions about Iraq. He wants to lift embargo against Iraq."

3. Other regime officials confirm that Galloway received allocations under the oil-for-food program.

4. In fact, just yesterday, the subcommittee reinterviewed a senior member of the Hussein regime to confirm whether Galloway received allocations. The subcommittee asked the following question: "Did the Iraqis grant any oil allocations to George Galloway, a member of the British Parliament?" His answer: "Yes."

5. The first series of exhibits reveal that Galloway received an allocation of 3 million barrels of oil in phase nine of the program.

6. In the first exhibit, which is reflected in exhibit 9, we see a letter from SOMO to the minister of oil requesting approval of contract M-923. In identifying the contract, SOMO indicates that the contract is with a French oil company called Irideo (ph), and next to that name, the letter states "Fawaz Zuraiqat, Mariam Appeal."
Yesterday, the subcommittee verified with that senior member of the Hussein regime that this document was authentic and that the oil minister's signature was genuine.

Regime officials interviewed by the subcommittee also confirmed that in these letters to the oil minister, the allocation recipient was identified in parentheses next to the purchaser's name. Accordingly, this document indicates that the recipient of this oil allocation was Mariam Appeal, the foundation established by George Galloway, ostensibly to help a 4-year-old Iraqi girl named Mariam who was suffering from leukemia.
Therefore, it appears that George Galloway used a children's cancer foundation to conceal his oil transaction.

7. A different Ministry of Oil document further confirms that Galloway received an allocation. That document, which appears at exhibit 10, is a chart created by SOMO after the fall of Hussein regime, that lifts all oil allocations granted in phase nine of the program.

8. Entry number 23 of that chart indicates that the oil for contract M-923, the Irideo (ph) contract that we discussed a moment ago, had been allocated to George Galloway and his agent, Fawaz Zuraiqat.

9. A single regime official that was interviewed yesterday confirmed that Zuraiqat facilitated Galloway's (ph) oil transactions. Quote, "It's my understanding that Fawaz Zuraiqat is oil lifter for Galloway."

 

[darkboong]

His waffling doesn't negate the following...Oh, and I cut the list short to keep this concise...

1. Saddam Hussein's chief lieutenant, Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, confirmed in an interview with the subcommittee that Galloway received allocations.

Those are Weasel Words. You see for Galloway to be complicit in that scheme the following would have to be true as well :

1) The supposed allocation did in fact happen.
2) Galloway knew about the supposed allocation.
3) Galloway took action to redeem the supposed llocation.

Point 1) has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt because the witness is quite clearly tainted. Points 2) and 3) have not been proven at all.

For all we know there was an allocation for Cheney, Rummy and Bush too.

2. In addition, as reflected in the poster presented now, Ramadan confirmed that Galloway was granted allocations, quote, "because of his opinions about Iraq. He wants to lift embargo against Iraq."

So what ? Lots of people wanted the sanctions lifted, Cheney was a vocal opponent of the sanctions, or have you convienently forgotten that fact ?

3. Other regime officials confirm that Galloway received allocations under the oil-for-food program.

"Named Sources" held in US captivity or "Unnamed Sources", hmm ?

4. In fact, just yesterday, the subcommittee reinterviewed a senior member of the Hussein regime to confirm whether Galloway received allocations. The subcommittee asked the following question: "Did the Iraqis grant any oil allocations to George Galloway, a member of the British Parliament?" His answer: "Yes."

What would have happened if he had said no ? The guy is of Iraqi original and is deep inside hostile terroritory, his fate completely in the hands of the Whitehouse. The same Whitehouse that outed a deep cover agent just because her husband said that the yellow cake story was a fake. Not only did they risk her life and destroy her career but they risked the lives of hundreds of other field agents by doing so too.

5. The first series of exhibits reveal that Galloway received an allocation of 3 million barrels of oil in phase nine of the program.

Again, so what ?

6. In the first exhibit, which is reflected in exhibit 9, we see a letter from SOMO to the minister of oil requesting approval of contract M-923. In identifying the contract, SOMO indicates that the contract is with a French oil company called Irideo (ph), and next to that name, the letter states "Fawaz Zuraiqat, Mariam Appeal."
Yesterday, the subcommittee verified with that senior member of the Hussein regime that this document was authentic and that the oil minister's signature was genuine.

Would this be the same kind of letter that the Yellow Cake story was based upon ? Or the same kind of letter that was deemed to be a forgery in the Telegraph Libel suit ?

Therefore, it appears that George Galloway used a children's cancer foundation to conceal his oil transaction.

No it doesn't, and what's more this claim has already been investigated thoroughly.

Even *if* the allocation was genuine, there is still no proof that Galloway has actually had anything to do with any allocations. Halliburton *actually* did do business with Saddam via it's foreign subsidiaries while Cheney sat at the helm. The US should keep it's own house in order before going around accusing other people on the basis of tainted *circumstantial* evidence.

There never was an investigative committee, it is a bloody circus.

 

[limerickman]

..

1. Saddam Hussein's chief lieutenant, Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, confirmed in an interview with the subcommittee that Galloway received allocations.

..........GG said in evidence under oath "I never met ice President Taha Yassin Ramadan".
Mr Ramaddan is currently in prison in Abu Ghuraib.
The testimony of Ramadan quoted today, was given by Ramadan in the past 48 hours.

2. In addition, as reflected in the poster presented now, Ramadan confirmed that Galloway was granted allocations, quote, "because of his opinions about Iraq. He wants to lift embargo against Iraq."

.....aforesaid Mr Ramadan verbally stated that GG got oil allocations in the past 48 hours.
Mr Ramadan is currently in prison in Abu Guraib.

3. Other regime officials confirm that Galloway received allocations under the oil-for-food program.

........funny that no other testimony from regime officials was put to GG today by the committee.
When GG asked the chairman for names of "officials" the chairman couldn't name them !

4. In fact, just yesterday, the subcommittee reinterviewed a senior member of the Hussein regime to confirm whether Galloway received allocations. The subcommittee asked the following question: "Did the Iraqis grant any oil allocations to George Galloway, a member of the British Parliament?" His answer: "Yes."

.......interviewed the aforementioned Mr Ramadan yesterday in Abu Ghuraib prison.

5. The first series of exhibits reveal that Galloway received an allocation of 3 million barrels of oil in phase nine of the program.

..........the series of exhibits showed a document purporting to show oil payments to Fawaz Zuraiqat with the name George Galloway in parenthesis.

6. In the first exhibit, which is reflected in exhibit 9, we see a letter from SOMO to the minister of oil requesting approval of contract M-923. In identifying the contract, SOMO indicates that the contract is with a French oil company called Irideo (ph), and next to that name, the letter states "Fawaz Zuraiqat, Mariam Appeal."
Yesterday, the subcommittee verified with that senior member of the Hussein regime that this document was authentic and that the oil minister's signature was genuine.

...........the senior member of the regime being Mr Ramadan currently in prison in Abu Ghuraib.
The alleged payment of oil to Mr Zuraiqat was not passed on the Miriam appeal.
In fact it it had been passed on the Miriam appeal, it would have been identified in the audit of the Miriam Appeal by the British Charity Trust, which is repsonsible for auditing all charities in respect of all payments received and
all payments made by every British Charity.

Lord Goldsmith the British Attorney General (remember him - he's the guy who told Tony Bliar that the war was legal) ordered an audit of the Mariam Appeal.
The audit report given to the attorney general shows that all payments to the Mariam Appeal and all payments made by the Mariam Appeal were above board.

7. A different Ministry of Oil document further confirms that Galloway received an allocation. That document, which appears at exhibit 10, is a chart created by SOMO after the fall of Hussein regime, that lifts all oil allocations granted in phase nine of the program.

8. Entry number 23 of that chart indicates that the oil for contract M-923, the Irideo (ph) contract that we discussed a moment ago, had been allocated to George Galloway and his agent, Fawaz Zuraiqat.

9. A single regime official that was interviewed yesterday confirmed that Zuraiqat facilitated Galloway's (ph) oil transactions. Quote, "It's my understanding that Fawaz Zuraiqat is oil lifter for Galloway."

....the aforementioned Mr Ramadan currently in jail in Abu Ghuraib..............

The money trail for these false accusations by the US senate has never been established.
The US Senate could not provide proof of a money trail to GG or the Miriam
Appeal, from the SH regime.
No bank accounts - no money transfers - no proxy purchases were provided by the US Senate Committee.

 

[Carrera]

I want to see a good old punch up. How about 12 rounds of boxing between Condi and Galloway (Condi allowed to use the old handbag).

Superb performance by GG.

He wiped the floor with them.

 

[limerickman]

I want to see a good old punch up. How about 12 rounds of boxing between Condi and Galloway (Condi allowed to use the old handbag).

George would wipe the floor with her, too.
The reason being GG was and is right about Iraq, since 1991.

GG opposed the imposition of UN sanctions and he opposed the Oil for Food program because, as he stated in 1991, SH had been through a huge war with Iran that costs millions of lives and cost a lot of money (which incidentally earned Donald Rumsfeld and his cronies a lot of money through arms contracts).

GG tabled motions in the House of Commons opposing British support for UN sanctions and the oil for food program in the period 1991-2003.
(he copied this to the committee today - a full printed copy of all his speeches in the Commons opposing the OFP and Un sanctions).

GG was also right to oppose the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq by USA and Britain.
GG has been consistent and truthful throughout.

 

[MountainPro]

Just heard George Galloway in front of the Senate Committee... The maverick politician is in good form. He mixed defending himself with good offensive moves as well. Liked the comparison between his two meetings with Saddam compared to those of Donald Rumsfeld.... and the accusation of the US companies plundering Iraq in the immediate months after the war... fascinating.

i just watched the full hearing on BBCi

fantastic. The senate were visibly struggling and frustrated at thier weak accusations....yes the rumsfeld comparison was pure gold.

it was like shooting fish in a barrel.

I liked it when they asked if Tariq Aziz was a friend of his, and Galloway reliped that Aziz considers him a 'good good friend' ...they didnt like that.

Every bit of his defence covered and robustly countered.

 

[Carrera]

I always felt GG was sincere in his beliefs and I think the Yanks are onto a loser if they think George is simply a conman who wanted to profit from Saddam's regime. This was clearly never the case. Of course, taking a stand on your convictions is always something to be admired so, good for him for sticking to his guns.
Even so, GG isn't the only politician in this country to oppose the Iraq War. Robin Cook showed huge courage when he gave up his job in the Labour Party over the Iraq War. That took real guts and as I recall he was in tears when he made his speech. Added to that, you had thousands of folks from different political parties who marched against the Iraq War so Mr Galloway is far from being a minority.
I read in the Times today that the U.S. Senate is out to nail the guy. They really have it in for him, maybe because he humiliated Blair publically in the election. GW has a lot of powerful enemies who will go to any length to ruin him so he's certainly very brave to stand up for his beliefs. Over Iraq I agree with him completely.

George would wipe the floor with her, too.
The reason being GG was and is right about Iraq, since 1991.

GG opposed the imposition of UN sanctions and he opposed the Oil for Food program because, as he stated in 1991, SH had been through a huge war with Iran that costs millions of lives and cost a lot of money (which incidentally earned Donald Rumsfeld and his cronies a lot of money through arms contracts).

GG tabled motions in the House of Commons opposing British support for UN sanctions and the oil for food program in the period 1991-2003.
(he copied this to the committee today - a full printed copy of all his speeches in the Commons opposing the OFP and Un sanctions).

GG was also right to oppose the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq by USA and Britain.
GG has been consistent and truthful throughout.

 

[limerickman]

I always felt GG was sincere in his beliefs and I think the Yanks are onto a loser if they think George is simply a conman who wanted to profit from Saddam's regime. This was clearly never the case. Of course, taking a stand on your convictions is always something to be admired so, good for him for sticking to his guns.
Even so, GG isn't the only politician in this country to oppose the Iraq War. Robin Cook showed huge courage when he gave up his job in the Labour Party over the Iraq War. That took real guts and as I recall he was in tears when he made his speech. Added to that, you had thousands of folks from different political parties who marched against the Iraq War so Mr Galloway is far from being a minority.
I read in the Times today that the U.S. Senate is out to nail the guy. They really have it in for him, maybe because he humiliated Blair publically in the election. GW has a lot of powerful enemies who will go to any length to ruin him so he's certainly very brave to stand up for his beliefs. Over Iraq I agree with him completely.

I agree with you that Robin Cook was very brave and his resignation from the British Cabinet was a very principled move on his part.
And I am aware that a lot of people marches in the UK in opposition to the war during February/March 2003.

Galloway opposed the oil for food program and the imposition of UN sanctions
since the early 1990's.
He has been consistent throughout.

The US Senate committee may indeed be out to get Galloway.
Already, an audit ordered by AG Goldsmith in to the Mariam Charity found that
all payment made by the Mariam Appeal and all money received by the Mariam Appeal, has been recorded in to the charity books and has been validated
by the British Charities Commission.
So the Senate Committee cannot point to the Mariam Appeal as evidence.

The only evidence that Mr Coleman and his fellow McCarthyites have is some statements made by an official in the SH regime, to suggest that GG received
millions - and it's millions that the Senate suggest that GG received from SHin kickbacks.

 

[darkboong]

I read in the Times today that the U.S. Senate is out to nail the guy.

No ****, Coleman was quoted by the BBC as saying that Galloway's Testimony was "Irrelevent". Welcome to the Forth Reich were dissent is a criminal offence.

 

[Carrera]

I'll let you into a secret. I was once having a bite to eat and a drink with my family in a local pub when news broke out about the bombing of Iraq during the Monica Lewinsky incident. I recall having a full-blown tantrum in the pub and causing such a stir, everybody was gob-smacked in the bar and my family shocked. Back then I was a minority since most people were backing the idea of sanctions against Iraq e.t.c. e.t.c.
It was only after 9/11 that people woke up to the idea Iraq was being made a scapegoat and that things were getting out of hand.
I never really swallowed all the propaganda about Saddam Hussein. It would have been nice to see a democracy in Iraq but the idea you can forcefully graft it into a country like Iraq isn't very realistic. Of course, there were problems. What if sanctions were ended and U.S. troops pulled out, leaving Saddam free to crush the Kurds? There are a number of factors that together led to this current mess.

I agree with you that Robin Cook was very brave and his resignation from the British Cabinet was a very principled move on his part.
And I am aware that a lot of people marches in the UK in opposition to the war during February/March 2003.

Galloway opposed the oil for food program and the imposition of UN sanctions
since the early 1990's.
He has been consistent throughout.

The US Senate committee may indeed be out to get Galloway.
Already, an audit ordered by AG Goldsmith in to the Mariam Charity found that
all payment made by the Mariam Appeal and all money received by the Mariam Appeal, has been recorded in to the charity books and has been validated
by the British Charities Commission.
So the Senate Committee cannot point to the Mariam Appeal as evidence.

The only evidence that Mr Coleman and his fellow McCarthyites have is some statements made by an official in the SH regime, to suggest that GG received
millions - and it's millions that the Senate suggest that GG received from SHin kickbacks.

 

[limerickman]

I'll let you into a secret. I was once having a bite to eat and a drink with my family in a local pub when news broke out about the bombing of Iraq during the Monica Lewinsky incident. I recall having a full-blown tantrum in the pub and causing such a stir, everybody was gob-smacked in the bar and my family shocked. Back then I was a minority since most people were backing the idea of sanctions against Iraq e.t.c. e.t.c.
It was only after 9/11 that people woke up to the idea Iraq was being made a scapegoat and that things were getting out of hand.
I never really swallowed all the propaganda about Saddam Hussein. It would have been nice to see a democracy in Iraq but the idea you can forcefully graft it into a country like Iraq isn't very realistic. Of course, there were problems. What if sanctions were ended and U.S. troops pulled out, leaving Saddam free to crush the Kurds? There are a number of factors that together led to this current mess.

I wouldn't agree with the notion that everyone agreed with UN sanctions.
I know GG didn't agree with them because, as he said yesterday to Mr.Norm Coleman and his fellow McCarthyites, that a million Iraqi children died because of the UN sanctions directly.
George Galloway also opposed SH - in his book "I'm not the only one" - he states clearly and catalogues his opposition to SH through the 1990's.

 

[MountainPro]

The BBC reported in the UK that GG has returned from the US triumphant after hitting the Senate for six...

 

[darkboong]

Back then I was a minority since most people were backing the idea of sanctions against Iraq e.t.c. e.t.c.

I was in the same minority, except I was at Warwick University at the time, a hotbed of Blair style Champagne Socialism. Shortly before going there I had visited a teeny-weeny little place in the middle of the Transvaal (in SA), and I came back with a very different picture of SA from what the press was pushing. I also came back with a very different view on the merits of indiscriminate Sanctions, as my mother was working for a Missionary Hospital out there. Sanctions made her job (treating poor rural people - ie: blacks) far harder than necessary. Supplies were difficult to get hold of and unnecessarily expensive (due to the weakness of the Rand).

Needless to say my opinion about sanctions was very unpopular amongst the Champagne Socialists whose closest contact with South Africa was the Nelson Mandela bar. My views were also very unpopular amongst the spoilt bastards (aka "Conservatives") too, because I didn't see co-operation with the Apartheid government as being an option either. That was the time when the "I've never met a nice South African" song was still fresh in the memory too. It made my --ing blood boil tbh, and I experienced the same frustration and rage when the same stuff was pushed by the Yanks and the Brits before during and after Desert Storm.

This time around things were different, so perhaps we've made some significant progress since the early 90s. We will always fall short of the ideal, but we should never stop striving to achieve it. The moment we do self-serving creeps like Bush, Blair and their cronies have won.

 

[limerickman]

I was in the same minority, except I was at Warwick University at the time, a hotbed of Blair style Champagne Socialism. Shortly before going there I had visited a teeny-weeny little place in the middle of the Transvaal (in SA), and I came back with a very different picture of SA from what the press was pushing. I also came back with a very different view on the merits of indiscriminate Sanctions, as my mother was working for a Missionary Hospital out there. Sanctions made her job (treating poor rural people - ie: blacks) far harder than necessary. Supplies were difficult to get hold of and unnecessarily expensive (due to the weakness of the Rand).

Needless to say my opinion about sanctions was very unpopular amongst the Champagne Socialists whose closest contact with South Africa was the Nelson Mandela bar. My views were also very unpopular amongst the spoilt bastards (aka "Conservatives") too, because I didn't see co-operation with the Apartheid government as being an option either. That was the time when the "I've never met a nice South African" song was still fresh in the memory too. It made my --ing blood boil tbh, and I experienced the same frustration and rage when the same stuff was pushed by the Yanks and the Brits before during and after Desert Storm.

This time around things were different, so perhaps we've made some significant progress since the early 90s. We will always fall short of the ideal, but we should never stop striving to achieve it. The moment we do self-serving creeps like Bush, Blair and their cronies have won.

I think you've hit on a very good point here.
The reality of sanctions imposed is that the ordinary citizen is always the first to suffer.
So in the case of UN sanctions and Iraq - the end never justified the means.
The end objective - the eradication of SH and his regime - through the imposition of sanctions was never going to be a reality which could be achieved.

But that didn't stop a lot of British and US companies from breaking those sanctions on Iraq.
It didn't stop them from profiteering from the oil for food program (just look at the Senate minority report and you'll see the names of the American companies who broke Iraq sanctions).
It did not stop Bliar and Bush conveniently overlooking those companies and individuals known to be profiteering.
That's the reality.

To compound the injustice perpetrated on the Iraq people through the oil for food program and UN sanctions, Britain and the USA launch an illegal invasion of their country.
They kill over 100,000 Iraqi's. They plunder over 8.8 billion of Iraq assets
and oil revenues in the 26 months since the invasion in March 2003.
And they have the gall to call this democracy !

 

[Carrera]

I agree with you, Limerickman. There are times I feel ashamed to be associated with these policies towards Iraq. Normal Iraqis suffered terribly from sanctions during the Clinton years and my view is that much of this suffering triggered the ill-feeling that led to an epidemic of Islamic terrorism. How many children suffered malnutrition due to sanctions? How many Republican Guard died during the invasion (armed with a few paltry supplies of small arms)? 2 rich countries attacking a Third World Nation is really tantamount to cowardice. Really it's a war crime and no good will come of it.
Sometimes I think I know how Germans and Japanese feel over the legacy of wrongs done in their name in past years. I know this sounds petty but look what happened during Eurovision. I know it's a silly song contest but the U.K. has had its butt kicked by every European nation when points are awarded. Terry Wogan said we were getting a kicking over the war. The whole thing has caused bad feeling and damaged out image overseas. Many Americans have been upset as well and Yoko Ono said John Lennon would have been horrified by what has taken place.

I think you've hit on a very good point here.
The reality of sanctions imposed is that the ordinary citizen is always the first to suffer.
So in the case of UN sanctions and Iraq - the end never justified the means.
The end objective - the eradication of SH and his regime - through the imposition of sanctions was never going to be a reality which could be achieved.

But that didn't stop a lot of British and US companies from breaking those sanctions on Iraq.
It didn't stop them from profiteering from the oil for food program (just look at the Senate minority report and you'll see the names of the American companies who broke Iraq sanctions).
It did not stop Bliar and Bush conveniently overlooking those companies and individuals known to be profiteering.
That's the reality.

To compound the injustice perpetrated on the Iraq people through the oil for food program and UN sanctions, Britain and the USA launch an illegal invasion of their country.
They kill over 100,000 Iraqi's. They plunder over 8.8 billion of Iraq assets
and oil revenues in the 26 months since the invasion in March 2003.
And they have the gall to call this democracy !

 

[darkboong]

IMany Americans have been upset as well and Yoko Ono said John Lennon would have been horrified by what has taken place.

I doubt he would have been "Horrified", furious more like. FWIW Yoko made a video full of pictures of maimed, mutilated and dead civillians in war-zones to make a point about the Iraq War. Naturally it got precisely eff-all air-time because it was deemed to be too grim, although cynical types like me think it was squashed because it was deemed a threat to support for the War.