PDA

View Full Version : George Galloway V's the US


Pages : [1] 2

Duff beer
17th May 2005, 15:56
Anyone watching this, its absoultely fascinating.

Not a fan of the man myself but he is certainly giving it to the senate and is making some very interesting points.

Anyone know if the build up to this hearing has been making the news in the US?

B Fraser
17th May 2005, 16:09
Old "Gorgeous" George (see scandals passim) gave Jeremy "Paxo" Paxman a good hiding on election night by making him look a complete tw*t. I can't stand the bloke myself however I would pay good money for a ringside seat. I reckon The Cousins have bitten off more than they can chew.

I don't think GG has been on the take as he is far too shrewd an operator to do something so silly however time will tell. Is it being televised anywhere ?

tony draper
17th May 2005, 16:18
Likewise,dont like the guy, but boy! he was not going to be pushed around by some chancers up on the hill.
If he can better Paxman on his own turf ,those poor buggas had no chance
Hee hee.
;)

effortless
17th May 2005, 16:19
Is it being televised anywhere ?

That'd be something. I don't like the bugger but he really isn't a big enough operator to hide a thing like that.

colmac747
17th May 2005, 16:28
Mother of all smokescreens, I visited Iraq the same number of times as your own Donald Rumsfeld - but I was trying to help, he was selling them arms with a map on how to use them! Great quotes.

:ok:

Richard Taylor
17th May 2005, 16:40
Agree with all previous.

Don't like his manner but he certainly made his mark at the Senate.

Rumsfield quote was a knockout(or should that be 2 falls & a submission,as Rumsfield was an ex-wrestler).

Darth Nigel
17th May 2005, 16:45
The presence of George Galloway can only increase the average honesty and integrity of the US Congress.

And I don't think much of GG!

rod1924
17th May 2005, 16:53
Agree with all above! Strange how he is not liked, but he is a brilliant orator and there was just a few pints of claret spilled!:ok:

tony draper
17th May 2005, 17:12
I think Galloways problem is people will forever see that clip in their minds of him grovelling and fawning over Sadams hand, bet he regrets that moment more than anything in his life.
:cool:

PPRuNe Radar
17th May 2005, 17:31
Can't agree with some of his views but he certainly is a very clever guy who sticks to his principles with an integrity and passion missing from so many of the fawning self interested corrupt pieces of sh*t that we have in UK politics today. :ok: (or luvvies as Mr D would call them !!)

Should turn out to be a very interesting inquiry, with a few bloody noses on the US side .... :O

Pilgrim101
17th May 2005, 17:56
Interesting times ahead for GG with Scotland Yard and the Inland Revenue no doubt showing more than a passing interest in his finances now.

The documentation (forged he says, at a time of chaos just to incriminate GG ??? - he's not that important despite his monstrous ego) and evidence from former members of the regime will be extremely interesting. If the sixers were going to incriminate anyone in the fashion he's suggesting, they should have targeted Tony Christie :} :E

Read about Galloway's time as a councillor in Dundee and get a measure of the arrogant, strutting, sycophantic, insignificant little [email protected] His whole political career has been self aggrandising bs and grandstanding.

I think he's sweating for the first time in his bluffing career though. ;)

Ozzy
17th May 2005, 18:13
Don't have any time for the egotistical a**hole that he is. And I don't think the cousins are going to let him go easy From the AP: : The subcommittee, chaired by Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman, claimed that Galloway allegedly funneled allocations through a fund he established in 1998 to help a 4-year-old Iraqi girl suffering from leukemia and received allocations worth 20 million barrels from 2000 to 2003....

Coleman later questioned Galloway's testimony. "If in fact he lied to this committee, there will have to be consequences," Coleman said at a news conference after the hearing.

Asked whether Galloway violated his oath to tell the truth before the committee, Coleman said: "I don't know. We'll have to look over the record. I just don't think he was a credible witness."

If he used the fund for the girl with leukemia to funnel illegal proceeds then hanging isn't good enough for him.

Ozzy

Caslance
17th May 2005, 18:27
I just don't think he was a credible witnessWell, he would say that, wouldn't he? :rolleyes:

Ozzy
17th May 2005, 18:34
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? Yes, if he believes Galloway is a liar.:ok: :hmm:

Ozzy

Caslance
17th May 2005, 18:41
Yes, if he believes Galloway is a liar.Which would make wee Georgie unique among politicians, naturally. :ok:

WMDs, anyone........ :rolleyes:

Grandpa
17th May 2005, 18:54
Think he was elected recently and heard part of his speach.
Impressing!

About Senate Commission: is it a surprise they concentrate on foreign personnalities...........and refrain from examining the datas about US individuals or societies involved?

Flying Lawyer
17th May 2005, 18:55
I'm with the majority here. I don't like the man, but ......

Another comment which amused me was telling the Republican chairman of the committee, Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota: "Now I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer, you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice."

:D :ok:

El Grifo
17th May 2005, 19:11
http://news.bbc.co.uk/#

Good, straight talking Scottish honesty, from a man who has had the guts to challenge the purveyors of misery in Iraq.

I have no idea if he was invited, summoned, or went by his own volution, but it is refreshing to hear somone publicly stand up against the groundless statments made by the very men that created the current situation in Iraq.

One wonders how much of this will be dispensed on US TV.

I fear the tale of the Runaway Bride, old that it is, will keep this clear of the networks. I say that having just returned from the US and once again been fed a diet of pap on television.

One wonders just how the "great machine" will handle this one.

tony draper
17th May 2005, 19:20
Unlike the UK where on the day of the Queens speech and other items of passing importance the lead news story is of a pop singer discovering she has breast cancer.

FLCH
17th May 2005, 19:26
the purveyors of misery in Iraq. Err ...would that be Saddam Hussein and company ? I think he still likes to be kissed on the hand and called "sir". I'm sure he's broken himself of the habit of exterminating thousands of his own people, or did Galloway say that was just" revisionist history"??

OldCessna
17th May 2005, 19:27
Most of his testimony was broadcast live on FoxNews, MSNBC & CNN.

I'm sure it will also make the nightly networks.

He definitely sent some zingers in but he has problems answering the question!

He tends to pontificate!

All in all it's always good to see politicians squirm though!

Don't know how many people over this side of the pond can understand him with his Scottish brogue!

acbus1
17th May 2005, 19:50
I despise Paxman considerably more than many interviewers on the TV.

I can't remember a single Paxman interview which resulted in useful information.

His attempt at a bullying line of questioning, based upon a dogged demand for answers to irrelevant and misleading questions, is truly moronic.

GG merely exposed the irrelevance of Paxman. That requires a high degree of honesty (IMHO) and a very direct approach.

Maybe GG is disliked for those reasons.........I find it refreshing. His destruction of Paxman was swift, easy and extremely satisfying to watch. :E


I've only seen brief coverage of the Senate sham on the TV News......my PC sound is bust and my ISP is slow, but if anyone locates a transcript of the hearing, I'd be grateful for info, please (a Google just links to news reports......a transcript would be much better)

El Grifo
17th May 2005, 20:04
Actually Old Cessna, the purest form of the English language has always been defined by the accent of the residents of the Inverness area in Scotland

Just watched the entire grilling on Sky. It was wonderfull.
Not sure who the beautifully coiffed senator was, but boy did he squirm.

I would like to see that in fast play, reckon it would resemble St Vitus Dance.

Hate to wash his sweaty underclothes though.

Pontious
17th May 2005, 20:10
Don't like the man personally but I think he won that round. I just don't know how he kept his cool when Sen. Coleman was p1ssing around with paper, whispering with a colleague and deliberately avoiding eye contact.

He gave as good as he got. He made Coleman look like a High School chump but I think GG met his match with Levin. I wish it could have gone on for a couple of hours.

Round 1 for the Pygmy Jockanese Warrior. Galloway won the battle, I wonder who'll win the war?

:ok:

El Grifo
17th May 2005, 20:13
I agree that Levin had him on the ropes, but Geordie managed to wrestle back and retain the moral high ground.

As for Coleman, he should return from whence he came !!

Which is where, may I enquire ??

Flying Lawyer
17th May 2005, 20:34
Minnesota - although from New York originally.

He was a prosecuting attorney for 17 years before going into full-time politics.

Democrat until 1996 then switched sides and became a Republican Senator in 2003.

http://coleman.senate.gov/_images/headers/photos/home.jpg

El Grifo
17th May 2005, 20:43
Ah right, a career-ist turncoat.

Sounds about the right kind of qualifications for the current Republican Party.

A lamb for the slaughter perchance ? Disposable and about to be taught a lesson by the wee man.

Interesting stuff though, beats the hell out of the Michael Jackson freak show.



http//www.afterthought.com - -

When his political career crumbles to its inevitable and ignominious end, perhaps he could rent out his forehead as advertising space.

Ali Barber
17th May 2005, 21:13
It was carried live on Sky News and CNN. Can't stand the bloke but he sure did show up the "Committee". Agree with others, some impressive quotes, especially the one about Rumsfeld!

Capt.KAOS
17th May 2005, 22:17
Why did they concentrate on Zureikat and never asked about how the Sheik of Saudi Arabia got his money and whether he paid kick-backs? Maybe too embarassing for the US?

Don't know how many people over this side of the pond can understand him with his Scottish brogue! GG's English was very understandable to me and English is not even my native language.

Now when is the committee producing concrete evident that GG actually got the money? All they have now is circumstancial evidence produced by conman/Iran spy Chalabi...

Rainboe
17th May 2005, 23:05
Dislike the man, but I thought he answered unsubstantiated allegations superbly and stuck a knife of his own into the panel. I thought it was dreadful the Senator repeated unsubstantiated allegations against Galloway again outside in an interview. Unless they can put some hard evidence on the table, they had better shut up or they will lose badly. Galloway seems to have the air of justification of an innocent. If so, he will wipe the floor with them.

OldCessna
17th May 2005, 23:12
I cannot for the life of me understand why Chalabi was so believed in such high circles given his credentials! (background & precons)

The Senate Investigation committees are notorious for being "blowhards" and loving the sound of their own voices. To impress their constituents no doubt. At least they believe so!

It was very interesting seeing how the two sides handled things. GG certainly made some points that will cause concern in the ranks!

I could understand GG well and had no problems with his accent but some of his replies invoked "subtitles" over here! Go figure?

At least he didn't mention some guy from Scotland called "Jimmy"

Ozzy
17th May 2005, 23:32
I guess that's why he is such a great liar!:E:E

Ozzy

Omark44
18th May 2005, 00:09
I may have misread this but it is my impression that we have seen very little yet.
GG has had a few minutes of fame but when the hard evidence, (assuming there is some), starts to hit the table what will he have to say then? Claiming forgeries is just a bit naive I would think?
If the evidence is there then, when the time is right, they will tear little George to pieces, surely they are happy at the moment to let him dig his own hole even deeper?

fernytickles
18th May 2005, 02:44
GG did a great job against Paxman and again at the senate hearing. Fascinating viewing, and like many others, I don't have much time for the guy.

If he is vindicated, does that mean he can sue the senate or the senators for slander? It is happening in America-the-land-of-litigation after all.

RaraAvis
18th May 2005, 03:41
Great performance by GG, impressive body language conveying 'honesty & transparency', staring straight in the camera while accusing Rumsfeld of selling arms to Saddam with a map on how to use them :}.

Made Coleman look like a confused paper-pushing twit.

Now, the concept of 'honesty & transparency':yuk: of any and all politicians is, of course, non-existent for any intents and purposes other than advancing their own little agenda:*

Wingswinger
18th May 2005, 07:34
It was certainly entertaining stuff. The "Member for Baghdad Central" socked it to 'em. Remember, he has been here before when the Daily Telegraph published what it thought was solid evidence that he had accepted money from Saddam. He launched a libel case and won. Plenty of information available via Google if you're interested.

Capt.KAOS
18th May 2005, 08:12
If the evidence is there then, when the time is right, they will tear little George to pieces, surely they are happy at the moment to let him dig his own hole even deeper? Then what are they waiting for? Wasn't it an excellent occasion to do now? Or do they have to send in a taskforce?

As for fundraising, did Kaiser Bush ever returned the ENRON money from his friend Kennyboy Lay? Did he ask where he got it from? Wot a :mad: hypocrisy.

High Wing Drifter
18th May 2005, 08:27
I have never been convinced that GG is the rouge the press have tried to portray. As far as I am concerned he is correct in his assertions. What does concern me is his willingness to associate with Saddam. Regardless of how trumped up the weapons issue is, it is clear that Saddam was a brutal dictator. However, as the whole anti Iraqi inspectors/WMD/corruption/freedom was and is such a cynical edeavour, other than being just an insipid talking head, how does somebody protest the issue effectively? The way GG did of course.

I particuarly likes the bit where the Senetor asked a question, then said don't bother because I know you aren't goint to answer it. Paraphased, he said "Help! How can I end this quickly?"

If he used the fund for the girl with leukemia to funnel illegal proceeds then hanging isn't good enough for him.
I don't buy it for a minute. Little girls, cancer, urggggh! Surely they can do better than that cliche to attempts to discredit a man. It is just so passe.

ATNotts
18th May 2005, 08:51
I heard GG on the radio yesterday evening, then saw him on TV. Like most others here I don't like the man, or his brand of politics, but boy did he do a job on the Senate Committee.

It's the best performance I've seen since Donald Rumsfeld was subjected to a tirade from German Foreign Minister Joschker Fischer over the war. Rumsfeld sat there like a stratled rabbit staring into car headlights!

I can't wait for the next session.

Bet Tony Blair wishes he had GG on his side!

Scumbag O'Riley
18th May 2005, 08:56
How can you lot start of by saying you don't like him, but then congratulate him on his style and what he said. I bet it's the first time most of you have actually listened to what he has to say in person. Him and Dennis Skinner are one of the few politicians you could go out for a pint and vindaloo with and not end up vomiting (unless you had too much beer and a dodgy curry). As for senate committes in the current political climate in Washington, waste of time and money, they made their mind up before they started.

Gouabafla
18th May 2005, 08:59
Well done that senate committee! They managed something I would never have thought possible - they got me siding with George Galloway.

Apparently Coleman said that he thought GG was not a credible witness - and he's a credible chairman?

Dr Illitout
18th May 2005, 09:01
I saw the speach and thought it was great!!.
Like most people my thoughts on him are inspired by the gutter press.
When I heard he was on the way over to see the senate I felt sorry for them!

Rgds Dr.I.

tony draper
18th May 2005, 09:08
I think Mr Gallway is about as sincere as any other politician,which is to say about as sincere as a crocodile, he's just a much better orator than most even one of political enemies said that about him at the last election,"I am glad he is back in becaus ehe is one of the best speakers in the house"
.

ATNotts
18th May 2005, 09:31
Scumbag: You're 100% right in my case. And as you say, until I actually moved to his part of the world, I felt similarly about the "Beast of Bolsover" (Dennis Skinner).

Still don't like his brand of politics though!

Pontious
18th May 2005, 10:05
Sen.Coleman had better get himself a good lawyer if he continues to make the same allegations about GG to the press afterwards. Those same allegations are what brought GG to Washington in the first place. He set out to give the Senate a bollocking for slandering his name with unsubstantiated 'evidence' and that's what they got.

If they have the capacity to learn anything from this, instead of the usual 'bufon-framed, colgate-smile tinted' smugness they pontificate around Senate Commitee hearings then they'll back off until they have some real sh1t on him.

After his performance, I bet GG was inundated with offers from swanky U.S. Attorneys to represent him in 'The Libel Case of the Century'. I can see it now..."Uncle Sam vs. Wee Man- Exclusive coming to a set-top box near you!!". With the royalties mounting, GG would have somewhere to hide his gazillions then!

:ok:

El Grifo
18th May 2005, 10:31
I think another great politician of similar ilk which you may consider adding to your buddy list could be Tam Dalyell.

Another fellow who is not afraid to mince his words when faced with difficult situations. A straight talker for sure.

BillHicksRules
18th May 2005, 10:32
Dear all,

As with what seems to be the majority of posters so far I am no fan of GG but loved watching him rip these stuffed shirts a new a**-h***.

His presentation manner was perfect. Looked them straight in the eye and talked calmly but forcefully and in my mind came off as very credible.

Now I, like I am sure most in here, do not know if these allegations are true or not. I think that only GG and those very close to him know for sure.

However, I would like to think that GG would not be as stupid to go down this current route unless he was 100% certain that he was whiter than white in these matters.

What do the rest of you think?

Cheers

BHR

Biggles Flies Undone
18th May 2005, 10:37
I'm with the majority - can't stand the man, but it was great entertainment! I sat there grinning just like I did when watching The Aviator in the scene where Howard Hughes faced up to the Senators :ok:

panda-k-bear
18th May 2005, 11:44
The best reaility TV show I ever did see!

X-QUORK
18th May 2005, 11:46
It's interesting this one isn't it? I strongly dislike and mistrust George Galloway, yet even I felt myself rooting for him yesterday. I think there's something in the British nature which dictates we always go for the under-dog, even if that dog has a questionable character.

BahrainLad
18th May 2005, 12:19
Oh dear....

Foxnews.com > Free Video > Opinion > My Word
- George Galloway got away scot-free during the congressional hearing on Oil-for-Food scandal.

Seems red America have thrown their toys out of the pram a teensy-weensy bit. Bless.

:ok:

El Grifo
18th May 2005, 12:28
Personally I have never had a bad word to say about George Galloway, I have always found him to be a very direct speaker.

Maybe I am missing something here. He has always been deeply unpopular in the hallowed halls of Ppruneland and I wonder why.

Is it simply a case of "I don't know him but I don't like him"
or has everyone fallen for the same old propoganda line.

Perhaps now that some of you are seeing him as himself, in a true light, your opinions might become modified.

Just a thought - -

Pilgrim101
18th May 2005, 12:33
BHR

Find myself torn between my strong dislike of "Gorgeous" George and disdain for pompous US senators who reminded me, briefly, and uncomfortably, of the famous McCarthy hearings ! However, I think GG's body language and unblinking stare was just a tad too stiff, stage managed and contrived, and frankly, the evidence of former members of the regime will be very interesting to hear against the background of the wealth of documentary evidence alluded to. If corroborated and proven genuine, God help him.

He certainly seemed to be getting his retaliation in first by trying to discredit the credibility of the very "War Criminals" whose courage, strength and indefatigability so impressed him before.

He revels in his unpopularity and that is his only qualification to feed his addiction to publicity. Hence his infamous, cringing meeting with Saddam in 1994 and constant courting of "anti establishment" causes. It is much easier to solve the abstract problems of Palestine before the very real ones facing one's constituents

Noteworthy that GG was associating himself with Kofi Anan, Chirac and other "hate figures" when in fact he is a very poor politician with a highly questionable track record even from his early days flying the Palestinian flag above Dundee town hall.

Duff beer
18th May 2005, 12:38
BahrainLad
Fox news video = BRILLIANT

havent laughed so much for yonks!

Whats Sean Connery done to upset him?

From
A Hated English man.

El Grifo
18th May 2005, 12:38
Can anyone tell me when the next rivetting episode is scheduled for ?

Capt.KAOS
18th May 2005, 12:41
Maybe the Yanks have been blown away by their own military tactics: "Attack, Attack, Attack!"

Clash of Cultures, finally the Americans see how the Brits are discussing politics. I wonder, have they ever see a bare knuckle discussion in the House of Commons and how Bliar is questioned sometimes? Bush would be eaten alive there.

GG had an easy game with the Senate Comittee. With some many flaws and egg on faces (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1485649,00.html) Congress would have wished it never started this inquiry anyway...

If corroborated and proven genuine, God help him. Once and again, why not check this out before accusing someone? CSM and Torygraph have lost libel cases based on the same documents.

Pilgrim101
18th May 2005, 12:51
Kaos

Because the documents exist and if genuine and the signatures are verified by witnesses then he has a lot more explaining to do.

My understanding of the Telegraph case is that it hasn't gone away yet (possible appeal ?) and that the problem area was general acknowledgement of the existence of such documents but that they alone did not justify the leap of faith to accept that he had in fact been rewarded for his lickspittle love affair with Saddam and his regime.

Capt.KAOS
18th May 2005, 13:49
101

When it comes to lickspittle love affairs with Saddam several other influencial US politicians might have to answer some interesting questions, don't you think? I would call this the Mother of Hypocrisy :rolleyes:

As for the Telegraph they were refused permission to appeal although they could have applied to the Court of Appeal direct to take the case further. As far as I'm aware of they didn't, one may wonder why?

PS
This is what Norman Coleman's committee has to say about the Telegraph's documents:

On December 2, 2004, Galloway won a libel suit against a British newspaper, the Daily
Telegraph, relating to an article on Galloway’s involvement in the Oil for Food Program.102 The
article that instigated the lawsuit apparently included forged documents concerning Mr.
Galloway that were purported to be found in the Iraqi Foreign Ministry after the fall of the
Hussein regime.103 The documents in that article included correspondence from 1992 and 1993.
The British court ruled that the documents were “seriously defamatory,” that the newspaper was
obligated to provide Galloway with an opportunity to respond to the allegations in the
documents, and that its failure to do so entitled Galloway to damages.
The documents presented in this Report have no relation to those discussed in the Daily
Telegraph piece. First, the Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and 1993,
whereas the earliest document examined here dates from 2001. In addition, the seemingly forged
documents in the article were connected to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, while the documents
examined by the Subcommittee were prepared by the Iraqi Ministry of Oil and its subdivision
SOMO. Finally, the Daily Telegraph documents reportedly included allegations that Galloway
was on the payroll of the Hussein regime, receiving a salary or direct payments.

I believe Galloway claimed yesterday that the Committee's papers were in fact the same as the Telegraph's.

Pilgrim101
18th May 2005, 14:19
Kaos

We'll see eventually, won't we, but Galloways tactics include obfuscation and bluster too. Again, there is a wealth of documentation under study together with precise statements from Galloway's erstwhile friends which will only go away under examination by due process in my opinion. Let's roll.

Capt.KAOS
18th May 2005, 14:29
101

don't you think it would be better to finish this studies before issueing accusations? If it was only to have a more solid case and being less vulnerable to obfuscation and bluster (if you play at bowls you must look for rubbers). It's all too much McCarthyism to me...

Binoculars
18th May 2005, 14:38
Well, I confess to being dumbstruck.

Never have I seen in Pprune so many people willing to say that somebody they don't like/agree with has impressed them with his performance. Pilgrim101 seems to be holding out, which is not entirely unexpected, but there are some remarkable quasi-supporters here. Mr Galloway, with whom I am totally unfamiliar, appears to have struck a responsive chord with a lot of unlikely people.

Can anybody post a link to the interview in one form or another so I can make up my own mind?

Biggles Flies Undone
18th May 2005, 14:41
There's a bit here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4553601.stm).

Good to see you around, Binos.

ORAC
18th May 2005, 14:58
Capt KAOS, I fear you are in error...

Telegraph wins right to appeal in Galloway ruling
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor (Filed: 19/04/2005)

The Telegraph won permission yesterday to appeal against a High Court ruling in December that George Galloway, the former Labour MP, had been "seriously defamed" when the newspaper published documents about him that it found in Iraq two years ago today.

Ordering a full hearing of the appeal before three senior judges, Lord Justice Tuckey said that one of the newspaper's legal arguments had a "realistic prospect of success" and was therefore "worthy of consideration", although it did not follow that this would decide the outcome.........

Capt.KAOS
18th May 2005, 15:24
Error ORAC? I said: "as far as I'm aware". We'll see eventually.

From the same article you quote:

"Explaining why the court was willing to hear the appeal, Lord Justice Tuckey said that a gap was opening between the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg over the extent to which newspapers were allowed to report documents that would otherwise be defamatory."

Well, well, Europe is rather useful all over sudden, isn't it ORAC? ;)

RaraAvis
18th May 2005, 15:58
Well, with the 'Newsweek' fiasco, the general public will not likely care much of the 'The Telegraph's' attempt to appeal against the High Court ruling. The media has, again, done itself in...
Still, let's wait and see, surely much entertainment will follow
:}

Caslance
18th May 2005, 16:00
Again, there is a wealth of documentation under study together with precise statements....Let me see... where have we heard this sort of thing before? :rolleyes:

Pilgrim101
18th May 2005, 16:47
Caslance

A statement of the obvious, but this time backed up by GG's former bosom buddies.

OK, not the most convincing witnesses but let's face it, they're not going to stitch up their only friendly MP are they ?


If the only politician left to look up to is Galloway then we're all f:mad: d anyway :}

Caslance
18th May 2005, 17:04
That's your opinion, Pilgrim, and you're quite entitled to it.

Wee Georgie may or may not be a lair, as others here have stated.

If he is, at least no-one has gone to war on the basis of his lies. :hmm:

Pilgrim101
18th May 2005, 17:44
So far, Galloway has blamed a zionist plot, MI6 and the Telegraph for the "fabrication" of these documents upon which the Guardian commented something like "even if the documents are real, the information contained therein might well be false" :rolleyes:

He really does think highly of himself doesn't he ?

On a more humorous note, when he was engaging on his first sycophantic foray into the Middle East, a visit to Dundee by the Mayor of Nablus reached it's zenith when a bottle of whisky and a kilt were ceremonially presented to him, and canny Dundonians questioned the wisdom of such gifts being presented to a teetotal Moslem who had had both legs blown off. :E :hmm:

Caslance
18th May 2005, 18:28
I didn't say that he was a nice man, Pilgrim...... :hmm:

Darth Nigel
18th May 2005, 19:52
I think that my delight was in seeing the sanctimonious pr!cks in the Senate getting a taste of real politics. These [email protected] have been living on the public teat for most of their unproductive lives, and have sought high office in the land primarily as a way of increasing their personal wealth. There's not a one of them I would have mourned had one of the Sept 11th planes actually hit the Capitol building.

On the other hand, George Galloway also fits the mould of scum-sucking parasite. So it's sort of like watching a copper and a traffic warden having a fight outside a bar. It's entertaining, and someone you don't like will lose :ok:

Jerricho
18th May 2005, 19:55
So it's sort of like watching a copper and a traffic warden having a fight outside a bar

Darth, I have been tryig nto think of an analogy of the whole thing, and mate, you just summed it up perfectly

OldCessna
18th May 2005, 20:02
Well said Darth and you probably are speaking from experience as you have some of the worst politicos in the land in your neck of the woods!

Ted K and John K are just some others may have heard of!

av8boy
18th May 2005, 20:22
You can watch the whole show here:
http://hsgac.senate.gov/audio_video/051705video.ram
It's RealPlayer and you might need the latest version of that software to view it (not sure though... in any case, it's free).

The file is three hours long, and GG isn't in the first half. If you drag the thing forward to 1:51 you'll be at the point where GG's panel is seated. Then Coleman does an intro of sorts, and GG finally starts his statement at 1:58 or so.

Very entertaining!

Dave

Darth Nigel
18th May 2005, 20:30
Heck, OldCessna, even George W. Bush was born up this way (New Haven, CT according to his bio) and educated at Yale before heading south for warmer climes.

Must be something in the water...

Huck
18th May 2005, 20:45
The best sound bite actually came later, from an interview on "The Charlie Rose Show":

"Can anyone actually place their hand over their heart and state that Iraq is better off after the occupation?"

Don't agree with the man, but hearing him does make me wish Americans had not stopped studying Debate in high school about 30 years ago.

Jordan D
19th May 2005, 00:16
Don't like his politics, or the man himself. Thought he was bloody rude to Paxo on Election Night.

But my God, am I proud of what he did to that Senate Committee. They needed a good telling what was what. They tried him without hearing from him or allowing him to defend himself. He told them it, and he made the world aware of it.

Full marks to the Member for Bow & Bethnal Green.

Jordan

arcniz
19th May 2005, 01:26
Between GB and US, enough pompous committees and blowhard politicians of questionable circumstances exist to support this sort of thing as a mutual and bilateral process - what one might call a "pre-prisoner" exchange - on a continuing basis.

Judging from comments thus far, the practice would be worthwhile for the entertainment value alone. It could also provide some much-needed cultural exchange between the two nations.

- hi ther binos...

acbus1
19th May 2005, 06:25
Thought he was bloody rude to Paxo on Election Night.
From the first moment of the interview Paxman asked a "question" which was totally unrelated to the Election. I say "question" because it was the usual obscure ferreting for a false statement, or an admission of no knowledge.......or whatever Paxman thinks he's achieving in his sad little mind.

GG stated that he was there to discuss the Election and his victory.

Paxman went into his well known "I'm going to keep repeating this stupid question over and over" mode.

GG removed his earpiece and coverage ended. I thought "Nice one Galloway! You've just gone way up in my estimation."

If anyone was rude it was, surprise, surprise, how unusual, Paxman.

Sorry to digress a bit, but I despise Paxman and I feel better now.

tony draper
19th May 2005, 09:22
I like Paxman, but of late he has a tendency to go over the top, in his defence he has probably been instructed to do so,in the interest of "Good Television"
Likewise Question Time, that used to be a interesting prog to watch but it also has turned trashy in the last year or so, yob audiences, loud mouthed panel members invited because of their enmity to each other,ect ect.

RaraAvis
19th May 2005, 09:32
An interesting excerpt from "a professional observer of Washington politics," mr. Emmatt Tyrell, a columnist for www.townhall.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is why I, as a professional observer of Washington politics, want to thank the Hon. George Galloway, the offbeat member of Parliament, for traveling all the way to Washington from London to provide us with a comic interlude. He has been accused by Senate investigators of profiting from Saddam Hussein's manipulation of the UN oil-for-food scam. Blustering and shaking in what sounded to me like a Scottish accent -- though it could have been the consequence of strong drink -- the Hon. Galloway informed the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that the charge is "utterly preposterous." "I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader, and neither has anyone on my behalf," he solemnized.

This line, of course, is an adaptation of the line once used by American Communists and fellow travelers while appearing before congressional investigations of Communist subversion during the 1930s, 1940s and early 1950s. Galloway is a ritualistic leftist. He is so left-wing that he was given the heave-ho by his own Labour Party. Somehow he thought it clever to portray himself in the role once made famous by American leftists testifying before Congress. After his appearance, a tumescent Galloway went before the cameras to boast of how his British parliamentary style had bested our more "sedate" congressional proceedings.

Galloway seems unaware that modern America does not feel much sympathy for left-wing subversives. Moreover, with the publication of documents from the intelligence archives of the Soviet Union, it is clear that many of those leftists and Communists from the past really were engaged in subversion for Moscow. The "Red Scare" was a Red Reality. As to how effective this master of British parliamentarian style was before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, consider this. After Galloway proclaimed his innocence and denounced President George W. Bush's Iraqi war as the result of a "pack of lies," Republicans and Democrats came to amiable agreement for the first time in months. As the ranking Democrat on the committee, Sen. Carl Levin, put it, Galloway's performance was "not credible." Levin, like Galloway, opposes the war.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yehooo, had a feeling this show will be worth watching .... It's those Commies, yup, all their fault !

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Galloway's buffoonery aside, the evidence now being displayed by our government explains why so many European politicians were so patient with Saddam's numerous breaches of UN resolutions. There was money in it for them personally. Up until the revelations of the oil-for-food scam, I had thought that the Europeans' refusal to attack Saddam was simply another example of European cowardice. There was in the months before the invasion of Iraq no great debate over weapons of mass destruction. There was only the Europeans' feigned claim that we had not exhausted every diplomatic approach to Saddam. He ignored UN resolutions. He rejected international inspections. He acted willfully and with impunity. Yet at the UN, officials refused to take action. Now we know why: There and in many foreign capitals officials were on the take.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One just has to love the american sense of humor, no ?:yuk:

Capt.KAOS
19th May 2005, 10:14
Yet at the UN, officials refused to take action. Now we know why: There and in many foreign capitals officials were on the take. A very recent US Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the Saddam regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together. And the US government knew all about it. But I'm sure that's all the fault of the commies....

"See the mote in one's brother's eye and not the beam in one's own".

ATNotts
19th May 2005, 10:34
That article by Emmatt Tyrell frightens the living daylights out of me!

I think you could have seen the same sort of rubbish, from different perpective, spouted about "capitalists" and those who opposed the system in the pages of Pravda in the darkest days of the USSR and the cold war.

The land of the free, liberty, leader of the free world...give us break!

If ever there was a reason for China becoming a second "great power" to put a brake on the USA you're reading it there.

BillHicksRules
19th May 2005, 14:14
Dear all,

I am amused to see the continuing fear that the US still seems to show with respect to Communism.

It seems to terrify them beyond all reason.

Can any of our American contributors comment on this?

Cheers

BHR

p.s. this is not a dig, I am simply curious.

effortless
19th May 2005, 15:27
We all need an enemy.

El Grifo
19th May 2005, 18:24
Some more than others, it seems.

:suspect: :ooh: :suspect:

BahrainLad
20th May 2005, 01:31
This man is awesome!

Keep watching for Galloway's rebuttal.....http://homepage.mac.com/onegoodmove/movies/galloway2.html

Norman Stanley Fletcher
20th May 2005, 02:16
There will always be people who are impressed by loud voices and snappy phrases coupled to high emotion. Since the dawn of time the technique of the 'big lie' has been used to deceive the gullible. When these guys are found out they lie bigger and shout louder. Our American friends may not be famililar with the case of Robert Maxwell who was a millionaire Czech newspaper owner in the UK who was 'larger than life' and sued for libel (and won!) various people who questioned his integrity. When he eventually croaked by falling over the side of his yacht the truth came out. He was a cheat, a liar and a thief who had nicked millions from his own employees' pension fund. Yet in life he was one of these guys who would argue black is white and declare the whole world to be against him. Galloway is another Robert Maxwell.

I had the misfortune to have Galloway as my MP in Glasgow Hillhead and I have followed his 'progress' with some interest for about 20 years. He had one of his first brushes with infamy when he was accused of nicking money from his charity of the time 'War on Want'. It was all a 'terrible misunderstanding' apparently. Sadly there have been a number of 'terrible misunderstandings' since then and after a while they all have the same ring to them. Most recently when the Americans overran Bagdhad the 'Information Ministry' was set on fire by its occupants and numerous documents burnt. In among the charred remnants documents were found declaring payment to Galloway for services rendered. All a 'terrible misunderstanding'. The Americans have in their custody virtually all the key players of Saddam Hussein's regime who are now singing like songbirds. Not surprisingly 'Our George' has been implicated in receiving funds by these regime figures - but of course it is a 'terrible misunderstanding' and they are all lying. Galloway has a history of deceiving his family, his colleagues and himself. We should not forget that his Middle Eastern interests also extended to personal visits to see Colonel Gadhaffi in Libya (who has also had a few 'terrible misunderstandings' with the West). To see the pathetic sight of a grown man like Galloway standing in front of Saddam Hussein grovelling out praise and adoration is truly one of the most ghastly spectacles I have seen on TV. Again it was all a 'terrible misunderstanding' and we never really saw the true nature of Galloway's visit to Iraq which was of course strictly humanitarian.

Galloway is the most consistent man in British politics in that he has been consistently wrong on every foreign policy issue for the last 20 years. Had he been born before WWII he would undoubtedly have found himself in Josef Stalin's office idolising him for his firm stand against American imperialism. He would also have been found in Adolf Hitler's office praising his 'fortitude' in dealing with Zionism. He will no doubt win many more libel cases, as Robert Maxwell did before him, and he will have his list of admirers among those who just love the opponents of George Bush. Even in his recent 'show' he berated the Democratic Senator for his support of the Gulf War and when it was pointed out to him that the Senator had in fact voted against it old liar George just could not bring himself to say it was a mistake but just said he was speaking in a general sense. That is the measure of the guy - he just cannot tell fact from fiction and ends up believing his own lies himself.

In the final analysis, history will show him to be a pathetic loser, who attracted even bigger losers around him - impressed by eloquent cachphrases and loud voices. He can fool 12 gormless clots on a jury any day of the week but he will never fool me.

West Coast
20th May 2005, 03:27
"I am amused to see the continuing fear that the US still seems to show with respect to Communism"


Your painting with a wide brush with that statement. Let me turn the tables, is communism in practiced form since WWII something not to fear?

maxy101
20th May 2005, 03:51
I feel that NSF may be right....though old George did put up a pretty good defence . I thought he made valid points about the flimsy evidence and photocopies of documents that merely seem to have his name in brackets next to a company name. One would hope that the Americans have more evidence than that.

High Wing Drifter
20th May 2005, 05:17
There will always be people who are impressed by loud voices and snappy phrases coupled to high emotion. Since the dawn of time the technique of the 'big lie' has been used to deceive the gullible.
Blimey! All GG said was "I didn't do it". The US fitting the the loud toy throwing mother of an tantrums. No GG. Anybody willing to stand up to corrupt and cynical US policy is the worthy recipient of an HWD round, if only for that alone.

Let me turn the tables, is communism in practised form since WWII something not to fear?
No it isn't. Real Democracy is a synthesis of competing systems (religion, fudal, monarchic, oligarchic, etc). Modern democracy necessitates a mature form of capitalism (how can you make a choice of government without having economic choices and visa-versa? (China take note)). However, the most stable democratic nations have a socialist underpinning that define and support our basic rights as individuals and as groups.

Communism is an extreme form of socialism. Democracy is formed by the tempering of extremes. For that reason Communism must be seen for what it was, part of the evolutionary process. If you fight it, rather than include its voice, it will push back...

...the same with Islam.

BillHicksRules
20th May 2005, 08:52
West Coast,

Can you give me an example of where communism has been used as the method of governing a country?

Cheers

BHR

p.s. Communism not socialism

ORAC
20th May 2005, 09:02
If you mean "communism" as understood by the in the man in the street as a brutally oppresive dictatorship, then lots. I presume this is an attempt, however, to claim that real communism has never been tried. The usual excuse by followers of failed creeds. Such creeds usually having failed as it´s precepts were incompatible with real human nature.... :hmm:

BillHicksRules
20th May 2005, 09:13
ORAC,

As I am sure you and WC are aware, communism has not been used anywhere.

The Soviets and the Chinese both thought they could go from Feudalism, miss out the next step which was capitalism and go straight to socialism on the way to communism.

As you are aware, neither has managed it. In fact political commentators claim that the Chinese are attempting to run a socialist state but with a capitalist foreign trade setup.

Cheers

BHR

effortless
20th May 2005, 10:11
Despotic government is despotic government. Calling it communism or fascism is immaterial. I would wonder what a Chilean or Savadorian would think of life in 70s Russia. I am continually distressed to see who we are supporting as the latest last bastion of western democracy.

Pontious
20th May 2005, 10:30
Meanwhile...back on the thread....

What's the next move? Uncle Sam to withdraw it's comments? GG to sue Uncle Sam for libel of defamation(?) of character? Uncle Sam to introduce new evidence?

Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! It was compulsive viewing and knocked the snot out of the UK soaps current storylines!

:ok:

BillHicksRules
20th May 2005, 10:40
Effortless,

You are of course correct.

Talking about Chile have you seen the latest on Pinochet?

Cheers

BHR

West Coast
20th May 2005, 13:21
BHR

Don't go off the deep end of the pedantic pool. You know what I mean. I also prefaced it with practiced form, not some theoretical belief.

BillHicksRules
20th May 2005, 14:12
West Coast,

I was not going off the deep end of the pedantic pool (although I do like to go swimming in specifics :) :) :) )

I was just stating that communism is confused with socialism when talking about Russia and China.

To get back to the actual topic at hand why not simply fear and oppose totalitarian rule of any kind?

Cheers

BHR

Ozzy
20th May 2005, 15:15
What is Galloway's name doing on official Iraqi dictatorship documents in the first place? Isn't that the pertinent question here? No smoke without fire.

Ozzy

Caslance
20th May 2005, 15:43
I imagine the name "Rumsfeld" also appears on documents from said Iraqi dictatorship.

Still.....no smoke without fire, eh? :rolleyes:

Capt.KAOS
20th May 2005, 16:02
The Soviets and the Chinese both thought they could go from Feudalism, miss out the next step which was capitalism and go straight to socialism on the way to communism. BHR, I see you know your Marxism and its Materialist Conception of History very well ;)

Russia had neither socialism nor communism or even Marxism-Leninism; it was Stalinism (or fill in: dictatorship, absolutism, authoritarianism, Caesarism, despotism, monocracy, one-man_rule, shogunate, totalitarianism, tyranny), while Mao's Great Leap Forward from fuedalism to capitalism turned out to be a disaster. But that's a whole new discussion.

Ozzy
20th May 2005, 16:10
I imagine the name "Rumsfeld" also appears on documents from said Iraqi dictatorship. I'm sure you can, but Galloway's name on the official dictatorship oil documents is not imagined.

Ozzy

Pontious
20th May 2005, 16:27
No Ozzy but I bet his name appears on those Iraqi Republican Guard & Feyadeen favourites like:
"How to invade a neighbour in 12 hours",
"How many Iranians can you kill in a day?"
"An idiots guide to operating the TOW anti-tank weapons system"
and my personal favourite
"How to swap arms for hostages and get the President of the day to develop amnesia about it."!

Rumsfeld and a whole host of other top ranking US officials names was on a lot of paperwork. I suspect the US has been very selective about what paperwork has been 'destroyed'.

Caslance
20th May 2005, 17:12
I'm sure you can, but Galloway's name on the official dictatorship oil documents is not imagined.Ozzy..... please don't insult my intelligence by implying that Donald Rumsfeld had no dealings with Saddam's odious regime in his capacity as Ronald Reagan's envoy.

Mr Rumsfeld himself doesn't pretend otherwise, so why should you? :hmm:

West Coast
20th May 2005, 17:28
BHR
Fair enough, I'm accused of the same from time to time.

"To get back to the actual topic at hand why not simply fear and oppose totalitarian rule of any kind"

Perhaps being a bit more specific (and I guess pedantic in some version) might be called for. Oppose is open ended in the context of your sentence. Are you talking about moral opposition over a capachino, physical struggle, internal, external to the country, what specifically?

"Mr Rumsfeld himself doesn\'t pretend otherwise, so why should you"

If so, you could at least say Mr. Rummy helped right his wrongs in the long run by deposing the "odious regime"
What has Galloway done? BTW, do you have proof of illegal dealings by Rummy? Will history look poorly at Albright because she had a face to face meeting in N. Korea?

Ozzy
20th May 2005, 18:22
Cas, no insult intended. But if you take it that way, so be it. I won't lose sleep.

Pontious, was that an attempt at humour? Prefer it if you stick to discussing Galloway and how his name ended up on documents connected to illegal oil dealings.

Ozzy

effortless
20th May 2005, 18:29
Pontious, was that an attempt at humour? Prefer it if you stick to discussing Galloway and how his name ended up on documents connected to illegal oil dealings. Give me strengthhttp://www.security-forums.com/forum/images/smiles/new_icon_teleport.gif

Caslance
20th May 2005, 18:31
....so be it. I won't lose sleep.Then we'll both sleep soundly, Ozzy.... :ok:

Prefer it if you stick to discussing Galloway and how his name ended up on documents connected to illegal oil dealings.Yes, I'll bet you would. :E

OK then...... could it be, perhaps, that someone put his name there deliberately in an attempt to discredit a prominent anti-war campaigner in the UK, a man who has been a voluble thorn in the side of "New" Labour for several years now?

Amazing how this evidence has survived all of the turmoil of wartime and post-invasion Iraq only to surface immediately after Galloway dealt a high-profile and embarrasing defeat to "New" Labour in what had been a safe Labour seat, isn't it?

What a wonderfully well-timed thing coincidence can be sometimes...... :hmm:

Grandpa
20th May 2005, 20:28
He is not US banker, or working for a US banker......

I noticed the Senate Commission seems not to be interested at all by US names appearing on the famous list...........

Got any idea of this curious sense of Justice cause?

ORAC
20th May 2005, 20:41
Galloway's problem: He is not US banker, or working for a US banker Perhaps he should move to France? :hmm:

Caslance
20th May 2005, 20:55
Perhaps he should move to France? Perhaps he should, but Grandpa's point about the curious lack of interest on the part of the Senate Commission in "sanctions busting" by US organisations would remain essentially valid wherever Mr Galloway chose to reside.

A case of "who pays the piper", perhaps? :ok:

Ozzy
21st May 2005, 00:10
Grandpa's point about the curious lack of interest on the part of the Senate Commission in "sanctions busting" by US organisations would remain essentially valid I love it when you guys make things up like this. You know, that's false so why say it?

The Senate hearing session you saw was specifically in response to Galloway's request.

The same Senate hearing is going after Bayoil, a TX based firm named by the panel under the same allegations as Galloway.

So there is no "curious lack of interest" - believe me Bayoil is being pursued the same as Galloway. Bayoil and its chief executive, David Chalmers, and two of his oil brokers face federal indictments in New York on accusations of paying Iraq illegal surcharges for the oil. Chalmers has denied any wrongdoing.

Actually you are right, if Bayoil's name being found on Iraqi oil documents is good enough to indict them it must be good enough to pursue Galloway.

Cheers.

Ozzy

PS I expect you are sleeping soundly right now Cas!;)

RaraAvis
21st May 2005, 05:07
Perhaps the Senate is afraid of being told again to "go f*** yourself!". Could explain the 'curious lack of interest' ....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from an article by Lee Drutman and Charlie Gray :"Halliburton, Dick Cheney and the wartime spoils"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Also forgotten is that story about how Cheney's Halliburton did business with Saddam. According to the Washington Post, "Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer."

Halliburton has also done business in Azerbaijan, Burma, Indonesia, Libya and Nigeria. As Dick Cheney once said, "The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratic regimes friendly to the United States."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caslance
21st May 2005, 06:16
The same Senate hearing is going after Bayoil, a TX based firm named by the panel under the same allegations as Galloway.Great news! Were they the only US company (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/02/iraq.oil.smuggle/) involved, or did the cheque for their contribution to someone's election campaign bounce? :hmm:

I trust you slept well, Ozzy? Speaking for myself, I slept the deep untroubled sleep of the just. :ok:

CarltonBrowne the FO
21st May 2005, 11:39
Interestingly enough, up till this week Senator Coleman was being tipped as a potential future Presidential contender.

BenThere
21st May 2005, 12:04
It's too early to write him off. He did win election in a democrat state after a successful run as mayor of a large city, I think.

Pompous performance in the senate has never hurt anyone. We expect it. Look at Robert Byrd, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy - I could name a dozen more. Every appearance by some of them is an embarrassment.

Coleman will be judged when the dust has settled on the oil-for-food doings. If he obtains results, he will have made his mark. Interestingly, Hillary Clinton's stock has gone way up based on her measured and mature performance as a freshman senator. Whether it's enough to overcome her corrupt and sordid past remains to be seen.

I enjoyed what I saw of GG's performance. It's great to see the p*ss taken out of politicians posturing for the camera. But GG's record of unstinting support for the murderous tyrants is there for all to see. If the evidence is there to do him in, I hope he gets his own comeuppance. If he is innocent, I respect his right to take any position he chooses and let the market of ideas reward or reject him.

If you support him only for his excellence in rhetorics, I suggest you add some depth to the analytical repertoire of your politics.

Capt.KAOS
21st May 2005, 12:26
But GG's record of unstinting support for the murderous tyrants is there for all to see. Hmm...he's hardly the only politician in that, or is he? I wonder when Bush will call upon Karimov about democracy? :rolleyes:

BenThere
21st May 2005, 12:30
Actually, the support of Karimov is being debated. I don't think you can seriously label George Bush as an unstinting supporter of tyrants. Is that the case you're making, Capt?

Given the choice between Karimov and an Islamic supremacist anarchy, Bush will support Karimov while encouraging him to adopt more humanitarian and democratic methods.

In the final analysis, the security of the US trumps everything. That's why Bush was re-elected.

Ozzy
21st May 2005, 12:45
Hmm...he's hardly the only politician in that, or is he He's the only British politician with his name on Iraqi oil-for-food documentation...

Ozzy

Caslance
21st May 2005, 12:59
So you keep reminding us, Ozzy.

But all that actually proves is that he's the only British politician with his name on Iraqi oil-for-food documentation.

As to who put it there, when they put it there, and what the motive was - well, then you're as much in the dark as the rest of us.

And that is a fact. :hmm:

Capt.KAOS
21st May 2005, 14:30
He's the only British politician with his name on Iraqi oil-for-food documentation... And your point is??

Given the choice between Karimov and an Islamic supremacist anarchy, Bush will support Karimov while encouraging him to adopt more humanitarian and democratic methods.I know, once Saddam was the choice against Islamic supremacist anarchy (read Iran).

That's why Bush was re-elected. Not by Uzbekistans or any other people outside the US...

BenThere
22nd May 2005, 19:07
Not by Uzbekistans or any other people outside the US...


May it ever be so.

McAero
22nd May 2005, 19:19
ok ok , this isn't going to go down well. As a Scot who went to university in George Galloways old labour constituency of Kelvin.......I just want to say that the hype surrounding him is ridiculous.

He is a man who is literally using the areas that consist of majority Muslims( and this is no disrespect to them) to gain political status. He realised many years ago that nobody was fighting the Muslim communities British political battle in this country. I am not saying that he does not care for his constituents, but I do believe there is something sinister underlying this whole escapade.

George Galloway, like most of us, is prepared to say what he feels (which is unusual for politicians), hence why the hype is so inflated.

Sorry folks, but I'm not a fan

Caslance
22nd May 2005, 19:19
May it ever be so.Well, unless Dubya runs for President of Uzbekistan or for World President it will stay that way, won't it? :rolleyes:

Ozzy
23rd May 2005, 00:53
Cas, the US population voted Bush in for a 2nd term. Hard to believe but true. You can still moan and whine that you think it was wrong. But you are in the minority. Tough but true.

Ozzy

RaraAvis
23rd May 2005, 06:24
Seems that we have a case of you CAN fool most of the people all the time here.
Bush is mightier than Brain
:ouch:

...ok, ok, I'm going....

El Grifo
23rd May 2005, 11:34
How can we expect this GG V's The US thing to progress ?

Is there a return match planned ? Will decisions be made based on his initial appearance? Will more enquiries be made in his absence.

Where does it actually go from here ?


:confused:

Dave Martin
23rd May 2005, 14:05
-- "But GG's record of unstinting support for the murderous tyrants is there for all to see." --

If you had watched the full 47 minutes (or followed Galloway) you'd know that, as he says, he was protesting against Saddam Hussein while SH was the love-child of the west. Maybe when you say tyrant(s) you are perhaps referring to others. Care to name them?

-- "Actually, the support of Karimov is being debated. I don't think you can seriously label George Bush as an unstinting supporter of tyrants. Is that the case you're making, Capt?" --

Debate is being made about Karimov? Where was that debate 2 years ago. I'm sure it'll only go as far as debate, a slap on the wrist. The US speaks of encouraging democratic "reform" in Uzbekistan, while hundreds of millions of dollars pour in to support Karimov. There is no democratic opposition in Uzbekistan. They are not allowed, and anyone who does speak up ends up with the Islamic militant label.

The "Islamic supremacist anarchy" you talk about may very likely be the fledgling democratic movement. When you have George Bush on your side the best way to stamp out any opposition democracy movement is to label them as Islamic terrorists.

The massacre in Andijon is the worst in Asia since Tienenmin Square. This is not good, and I really wonder about the media in the US being so soft on Karimov for so long. Where has the real criticism been? It wouldn't surprise me if this was the first negative news most Americans had even heard of the man.

Grandpa
23rd May 2005, 14:51
Tyrants are used by the Empire till they become dangerous for the Empire.

So was Saddam.

Same fate for Karimov (but as for now he is still needed....)

El Grifo
23rd May 2005, 16:29
I have asked many people what the next stage in the Senate Hearing is.

Some mumble about a second stage. Most, like myself do not really know.

Can anyone please enlighten me, so that I in turn can enlighten others.

Please.

engineer(retard)
23rd May 2005, 18:41
Tyrants are used by the Empire till they become dangerous for the Empire....but Darth Vader came good in the end.

Caslance
23rd May 2005, 18:51
Cas, the US population voted Bush in for a 2nd term. Hard to believe but true. You can still moan and whine that you think it was wrong. But you are in the minority.OK, Ozzy, I'll bite.

Come on then, show me where I've whined and/or moaned about the outcome of the last Presidential election in the USA. Soon as you like.

Unlike some people in these hallowed precincts, I understand and accept that democracy sometimes means that the side you'd prefer to win loses and in any case, as a British subject, what business is it of mine anyway? :confused:

flaps to 60
24th May 2005, 09:22
Anyone got a link to the GG paxman interview. I would love to see that pompus arrogant get a right kicking by his interviewee.

Like most people i dont like GG brand of politics but it was good to see that donkey Coleman get a swift lesson in real politics.

Try reading Stupid White Men the book by Micheal Moore as it shows US politics up for what it really is all about.......yeah you guessed it the good old green back.

The American public are just the same as you and me ordinary people trying to make a living and looking after their families. But they have two enemies the American Media and Politicians. The later are a self serving bunch of businessmen who look after only themselves.

Georgous George showed up at least one of them for that and i think they will think a little harder who they choose for round two.

HowlingWind
24th May 2005, 13:43
But they have two enemies the American Media and Politicians. The later are a self serving bunch of businessmen who look after only themselves. Which sets them apart from the former how, exactly? :confused:

Jordan D
24th May 2005, 14:36
For the GG v Paxo interview - the third link on the body of this page (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4506283.stm)

Jordan

BenThere
24th May 2005, 14:45
Flaps,

Reference to Michael Moore, while possibly providing some context, will never reveal what anything is 'really all about'.

BillHicksRules
24th May 2005, 15:24
Flaps/BT,

If you find MM amusing but a bit lacking in depth then try reading Al Franken. I would recommend his book "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them"

Cheers

BHR

chuks
24th May 2005, 17:04
I have a lot (well, a two-thousand naira bar card) riding on this pompous, shifty little git having his greasy hide nailed to the barn door, after so foolishly winding up the powerful and vengeful US Senate.

Before his trip to Washington Galloway was just a sideshow; now he is right in the crosshairs and I bet, whatever you want to make of his 'politics', that he is deeply corrupt. It shall be just a matter of assembling and presenting the evidence.

I bet he has stripes in his suntan before long. Next time he shows up before the Senate he had better bring along his toothbrush, jammies and something to read.

Caslance
24th May 2005, 17:20
Next time he shows up before the Senate he had better bring along his toothbrush, jammies and something to read.Oh yes.... going to lock him up without trial for "offences" committed outside US jurisdiction are they, chuks?

Now, where have we heard that one before, eh?

And there I was thinking we were the Good Guys..... :rolleyes:

Darth Nigel
24th May 2005, 17:24
I bet, whatever you want to make of his 'politics', that he is deeply corrupt.

Not to make too much of this -- blaming a politician for being "deeply corrupt" is like blaming a dog for having fleas. I suspect if we turn the harsh light of reality on almost any politician (especially the American ones, currenly the target for my disdain), we will see all manner of graft, corruption, greed and shall-we-say "enlightened self-interest".

Always amused me to see people like Newt Gingrich and Bill Frist and Ted Kennedy condemning other politicians for having no moral compass.

flaps to 60
25th May 2005, 09:45
Jordan D

Your a star!

This clip just goes to show what a large tool Paxman is. His day has passed and after that interview he should retire in shame and interview children because thats about his ability.

It was great to see that knob paxman squirm.

Ben There

Your possibly right but as a British resident it was a bit of an eye opener to what goes on in Capital Hill.

MM definitely has an agenda and his politics are certainly left of centre. His other book "Downsize This" also paints a very grim picture of a political and commercial ethic that some around the world may have looked up to and certainly many Americans believe,

BHR

I will look out for that one. Cheers for the heads up as i found MM Intrigueing as well as amusing.

Howling Wind

Your right of course how stupid of me to have separated the two. I appologise as i must of had a blonde momment:)

ORAC
25th Oct 2005, 05:50
The Times: US Senate 'finds Iraq oil cash in Galloway's wife's bank account'

GEORGE GALLOWAY faces possible criminal charges after a US Senate investigation tracked $150,000 (£85,000) in Iraqi oil money to his wife’s bank account in Jordan. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will refer the Respect Party MP for possible prosecution after concluding that he gave “false and misleading” testimony at his appearance before the panel in May.

The sub-committee claimed that, through intermediaries, Mr Galloway and the Mariam Appeal were granted eight allocations of Iraqi crude oil totalling 23 million barrels from 1999 to 2003. It will also forward the new information to British authorities, saying it raised questions about Mr Galloway’s financial disclosure and the payment of illegal kickbacks to Iraq. “We have what we would call the smoking gun,” said Senator Norm Coleman, the sub-committee’s Republican chairman.

The sub-committee’s report, released today, was provoked by Mr Galloway’s clash with the senators — which he turned into a book entitled Mr Galloway goes to Washington. In that encounter, the anti-war MP vehemently denied receiving oil allocations from Iraq. But the report provides bank account details tracking payments from an oil company through a Jordanian middleman to Mr Galloway’s nowestranged wife, Amineh Abu- Zayyad, and his Mariam Appeal fund.

“Galloway was anything but straight with the Congress. He was anything but straight with the American people. There was a lot of bombast. There was a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing,” Senator Coleman said. “We take very seriously the importance of testifying honestly before this committee . . .” he said. “We will forward matters relating to Galloway’s false and misleading statements to the proper authorities here and in Great Britain.”

A Senate aide said that Mr Galloway would be referred to the Justice Department for investigation of possible perjury, false statement and obstruction of a congressional proceeding — all “Class A” felonies carrying a sentence of up to five years and a $250,000 fine.

The report says the Jordanian middleman Fawaz Zureikat, a close friend of Mr Galloway and his representative in Baghdad, funnelled $150,000 from Iraqi oil sales to Mr Galloway’s wife and at least $446,000 to the Mariam Appeal. On the same day Mr Zureikat also paid $15,666 to Ron McKay, Mr Galloway’s spokesman. Mr McKay could not be contacted for comment last night.

The saga dates back to Mr Galloway’s Big Ben to Baghdad tour in September 1999 when he took a red double-decker bus to Iraq. An anonymous “oil trader 1” told the Senate investigators that Mr Galloway asked him at the Rashid Hotel, during the tour, how to translate oil allocations into money.

Another individual, known as “oil trader 2”, told the investigators that he learnt in summer 2000 that the Iraqi Government had granted an allocation of oil to someone represented by Mr Zureikat. Oil trader 2 said: “At that time I knew that the individual that Zureikat represented was a British official named George Galloway.” He added: “Officials of the Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organisation confirmed to me that Mr Zureikat represented Mr Galloway in the sale of Galloway’s allocations of Iraqi crude oil.” He also told investigators: “The fact that Mr Zureikat represented Mr Galloway with respect to oil allocations and other business in Iraq was common knowledge, understood by many oil traders with whom I had regular contact.”

The investigators spoke to Tariq Aziz, the former Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, who told them that Mr Galloway asked him for political funding in allocations in the name of Mr Zureikat. The Senate report shows that Mr Zureikat received $740,000 from Taurus Petroleum on July 27, 2000, as commission for its purchase of 2,645,068 barrels of oil. The report then reproduces money-transfer documents from Citibank showing that Mr Zureikat sent Mr Galloway’s wife $150,000 on August 3, 2000. They conclude that the amount was “largely” Oil-for-Food money because Mr Zureikat’s account contained $848,683 at the time, only $38,000 of which did not come from the programme.

Mr Galloway accused Senator Coleman last night of using congressional privilege to attack and smear him. He said: “I’ve already comprehensively dealt with these allegations — under oath in the High Court and the US Senate — to the Charity Commission and in innumerable media inquiries.”

-----------------------------------------------------

Saddam's henchmen say they rewarded a 'friend'
By David Charter

SOME of the most senior members of Saddam Hussein’s regime contradicted George Galloway’s denials that he ever sought benefit from Iraqi oil, US investigators said yesterday.

The most damning fresh testimony came from Tariq Aziz, the former Deputy Prime Minister, who told the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that Iraq granted Mr Galloway oil allocations to help to fund his Mariam Appeal. The investigators said Mr Aziz also told them that a letter allegedly recording a request by Mr Galloway for an increased “share of oil” is authentic. The letter, found in a government building, purports to be from the Iraqi Intelligence Service, dated January 2000. Mr Galloway’s challenge to the letter’s authenticity was at the heart of a successful libel action he took against Telegraph Newspapers. The case is under appeal. Mr Galloway said his accusers from Saddam’s regime were all under sentence of death and Mr Aziz had been offered a deal to testify.

Taha Yasin Ramadan, the former Vice-President of Iraq, told the subcommittee that Mr Galloway had been granted oil allocations “because of his opinions about Iraq” and because he “wanted to lift the embargo against Iraq”. He added that Mr Galloway was “a friend of Iraq” and “needed to be compensated for his support”. Mr Ramadan said: “Galloway needed money to pay for his actions” and “We gave him oil to sell to make the money.”

Mr Aziz said: “The oil allocations we gave to George Galloway were in the name of either (Burhan al-) Chalabi or to (Fawaz) Zureikat.” He also said: “The oil was allocated in the name of Zureikat and Chalabi, once or twice. These oil allocations were for the benefit of George Galloway and for Mariam’s Appeal. The proceeds from the sale benefited the cause and Mr Galloway.”

Asked if Mr Galloway had been granted oil allocations, Amer Rashid, the former Oil Minister, replied: “Yes.” He described Zureikat as “the oil lifter” for Mr Galloway.

Mr Galloway said last night: “I’ve never met Ramadan or Rashid but they are facing charges which may carry a death sentence, as is Tariq Aziz. He has been held incommunicado for two years and we know that he has been offered a deal to testify. On the one hand the US Government accuses these men of being homicidal maniacs, on the other they assert that their coerced testimony is utterly trustworthy. Let Senator Coleman bring them and his unnamed sources to court in a case against me, and we’ll see what the world concludes.”

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4373764.stm)

Ozzy
25th Oct 2005, 14:18
Let Senator Coleman bring them and his unnamed sources to court in a case against me, and we’ll see what the world concludes. Poor old Georgie Porgie should not be worried about what the world thinks, but what a bunch of senators and eventually a jury concludes. But that quote just shows how the @rsehole thinks.

Ozzy

West Coast
26th Oct 2005, 06:27
Is Hitchens gonna have to head to Gitmo for part duex?

ORAC
26th Oct 2005, 06:49
he seems to think he can bluster and debate his way through this. he may find the legal system and the House not so easy to persuade.

The Times:

THE Parliamentary Ombudsman was studying claims yesterday in a US Senate report that George Galloway failed to disclose money from Iraq’s Oil-for-Food programme in the register of interests. Senators piled more pressure on the Respect MP by accusing him of knowingly misleading the English High Court under oath in a libel trial. He is already expected to be referred to the US Justice Department over claims of perjury, false statement and obstruction of proceedings, risking a five-year sentence.......

In its final appendix, the Senate Permanent Sub-committee on Investigations rebukes Mr Galloway. . It accuses him of "violating" the MPs’ code of conduct by failing to register financial interests. "George Galloway did not disclose any of the transfers from Zureikat to his wife or the Mariam Appeal that resulted from the Oil-for-Food transactions," the senate report states.

Sir Philip Mawer, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, was believed to be reading the senators’ report yesterday. "He is constantly in touch with the Senate Sub-commitee," his office said. The commissioner received a complaint in April 2003 that Mr Galloway had failed to register £375,000 from Saddam Hussein’s regime........

The Guardian:

George Galloway is considering taking his fight with Senator Norm Coleman to the Republican's heartland by booking a venue in Minnesota and challenging him to a debate....... Ron McKay, Mr Galloway's assistant, said that a hall could be booked for Minnesota possibly for as early as next week. The two could fly to the US and challenge Senator Coleman to turn up for a debate.....

------------------------------------------------------------

In the meantime, he does seem to be trying to prepare a way out by diverting the blame to his wife. Nice piece of work, isn´t he?

The Guardian:

Mr Galloway claimed he was unaware of the $150,000 (£84,000) allegedly deposited into his estranged wife's bank account by Jordanian businessman, Fawaz Zureikat. He added: "These are allegations about my soon to be ex-wife who divorced me on the front page of the Sunday Times five days before the general election, which I was a candidate for, in May this year."..... The senate committee claimed to have found $150,000 in Iraqi oil money in the bank account of Mr Galloway's estranged wife Armineh Abu-Zayyad, a Palestinian. Mr Galloway said yesterday he was not responsible for his wife's finances.........

El Grifo
26th Oct 2005, 07:44
Irrespective of the outcome, it will be truly refreshing to see that bouffant, rabbit - caught - in - the - headlights, weakdick Coleman have some straight talk dished out to him once more, on national television.

The watered down, wishy- washy garbage that passes for political debate in the US is about to be injected with a dose of reality once again.

It may help the US public realise how much control and propaganda is applied to normal current affairs "programmes"


They loved it last time, they will love it again!!!



:ok: :confused: :ok:

The Otter's Pocket
26th Oct 2005, 08:12
El Grifo
Quite right too.

I doubt very much that the GG camp has recieved the money that he is being accused of. It is more to do with the fact that he made a group of very powerful men look like buffoons and as they say in the US..."They are pissed".

Its pure and simple revenge...when are people going to realise their lives are being controlled, its just not as obvious as 1984.

Curious Pax
26th Oct 2005, 09:20
Otter,
Agreed. Whilst I wouldn't cross the street to p*ss on Galloway if he was on fire, this all smacks of revenge by Coleman. Wouldn't be at all surprised if this is the last we hear of it, in which case the US and UK public will just remember the last accusation as fact, end of story. It could be true of course, but I doubt that it would have been announced in this way if there was much credible evidence available.

tony draper
26th Oct 2005, 09:38
Bah! the cousins are getting soft,in my day they wudda just sent a couple of their wet work chaps across,or subbed the job to 6.
:cool:

RatherBeFlying
26th Oct 2005, 12:26
My ex-wife put a lien on our house without my knowledge -- would that make me guilty of receiving that money when it was used to pay her lawyer?

In the eyes of Republicans, that makes him guilty as Hell.

ORAC
26th Oct 2005, 12:44
Looks like he may get his chance in court, since he says he wants it so much:

Mr Coleman is expected to announce at a Washington press conference today that he is passing the committee's findings to the justice department to decide whether Mr Galloway should face criminal charges.

A justice department spokesman confirmed that the Senate allegations against Mr Galloway would be given "serious consideration".

West Coast
26th Oct 2005, 15:11
Seems like a number of you are missing the point, almost to your own admission. GG's guilt or innocence seems not to matter as long as you (he) can stick a few barbs in Colemans arse.
What of his guilt or innocence? That should be your focus, not if he gets a few sound bytes that you happen to like.

Darth Nigel
26th Oct 2005, 15:19
And this will be a pleasant and convenient distraction from the Rove/Libby/Cheney maelstrom that looms.

Caslance
26th Oct 2005, 16:40
What right does a US court have to lay charges against a British subject for crimes alleged to have been committed outwith US territory or jurisdiction?

Is the US DoJ now claiming to have a global remit? :confused:

El Grifo
26th Oct 2005, 17:48
It is interesting, but sad at the same time to watch the US system of government, which at best is good, at worst very frightening, slowly disappear up its own sphincter.

Gone are the heady days of optimism. Gone are the days of the American Dream.

Bushism seems to have brought the country to its knees and turned it into a leper of the planet.

Thankfully there is a growing ground swell of resentment against the current "government"

Think back to the Clinton days, when all seemed well in the world apart from the misuse of a few cigars. Were we living an illusion, or were things not quite as dangerous?

Fast forward to the Bush election, the massive security cock-up which brought us 9/11 (sic) The knee jerk reaction by the hard headed and very suspect neo-cons that now run the country, the ensuing WMD sham, the inability to organise relief after a long pre-predicted hurricaine and the related exposure of the massive poverty that exists in the land of the free and home of the brave.

The US can recover from this dark period, thanks to the enormous spirit of the people, but who can lead them out of it.

It is hard to believe that things can go so wrong, so quickly for the worlds mightiest nation.

ORAC
26th Oct 2005, 17:55
What right does a US court have to lay charges against a British subject for crimes alleged to have been committed outwith US territory or jurisdiction?

The crimes are perjury, false statement and obstruction of proceedings. If you go to the USA and break the law, expect to be charged, be it murder or perjury. They have, out of courtesy, advised the UK of offenses they believe committed there. If the UK authorities agree looking at the evidence, no doubt he will be charged here.

Which part of this do you find difficult to understand?

I would advise him to take care in returning to the USA and, perhaps, to start considering taking a prolonged holiday from the UK. perjury in libel proceedings caused Geoffrey Archer some angst....

Techman
26th Oct 2005, 18:08
I would advise him to take care in returning to the USA Oh my, now also a legal advisor. I'm impressed.

Judging from the smugness of Senator Coleman, there seems to be a great deal of "I'm a gonna git ya sucka" behind this.

Just refresh my memory, how many time haves GG been through the courts and how many times has he lost?

Ozzy
26th Oct 2005, 18:51
Just refresh my memory, how many time haves GG been through the courts and how many times has he lost? why should the outcome of case N affect the outcome of Case N+1?:E

Ozzy

Techman
26th Oct 2005, 19:15
We all know you don't like the man, but I suppose answering "I don't know" would have been to easy.

Caslance
26th Oct 2005, 19:30
Ah, but that would be tantamount to heresy, Techman. :rolleyes:

I find no part of it difficult to understand, ORAC.

Difficult to credit, yes - but grandstanding politicians are a doddle to understand.

acbus1
26th Oct 2005, 20:06
I continue to find that my initial impressions of Galloway, based very unfairly upon nothing other than what seemed to be a dislike of his seemingly big mouth, are becoming quite the opposite the more I listen to him.

I thoroughly enjoy, indeed wallow, in the way he takes pathetic journos and corrupt, self seeking Americans apart with straightforward talk. His demolishing of that irrelevant amoeba, Paxman, during the General Election, was a joy! A pity it only took a few seconds....I'd have loved to see Paxman squirm for much longer.

I look forward to him being subjected to American "justice", it being essential that it be televised, unedited, live. The Americans woud be likely to regret it. I would thoroughly enjoy watching their comfy little government systems blown apart and for the lot of them to be exposed as the putrid, corrupt little irrelevances they truly are.

ORAC
26th Oct 2005, 20:08
It would be interesting to know how the new extradition arrangements between the UK and USA apply. They are currently extraditing 3 businessmen after all.....

West Coast
26th Oct 2005, 21:25
"Gone are the heady days of optimism. Gone are the days of the American Dream"

They are? I guess you got the memo before me as I personally don't find the gloom and doom you sense from far off on another continent. You can likely produce some study from some group on the periphery, but don't pretend you can support such overly simplified statements.

Cas
Wouldn't it be reasonable to believe the UK could do the same if fat boy Moore (our loud mouth equivalent) lied under oath in your courts or in front of an investigative committee of your government and was foolish enough to return for a second trip?

Caslance
26th Oct 2005, 21:33
So you've decided the verdict in advance then, WC? :rolleyes:

Care to remind us of the provenance of this "new evidence"?

West Coast
26th Oct 2005, 23:14
I only ask if you believe that the UK could do the same if it believed a crime was commited on its soil. You can read what you want in to the structure of my example, but you know what the intent was. A tactic that is usually below you.

Caslance
27th Oct 2005, 07:39
A tactic that is usually below youAhhh, but I've had such a fine example to follow over the years, WC.....:E

Serious answer: I doubt that the current UK Crown Prosecution Service (very roughly equivalent to your DoJ) would even attempt to bring a prosecution against such a high-profile US media figure.

For one thing, they seem to have enough trouble bringing our home-grown criminals to book.

Secondly, even were the CPS to serously contemplate bringing such charges they would immediately come under intense pressure from a Government fearful of the potential political fallout - especially in the event the jury not having read the script and finding the accused innocent.

And come off it, WC. I understand that Tariq Aziz, Saddam's Deputy Prime Minister, is being cited as one of the sources of this "new evidence".

Since when did senior figures in Saddam's odious regime suddenly become sources of objective and unassailable truth? :rolleyes:

ORAC
27th Oct 2005, 07:45
Criminals often turn on their former colleagues and provide evidence against them. It´s up to a jury to decide if they believe them. George has insisted he wants his day in court. I cannot see why anyone should object to his being given the opportunity..... :hmm:

alemaobaiano
27th Oct 2005, 11:28
I cannot see why anyone should object to his being given the opportunity.....
to cross-examine the witness for the prosecution?

Does any government involved in this really want it to go to court, where all sorts of other unpalatable facts could emerge? Or is the nailing of one loud-mouthed UK politician that important?

It's great entertainment, but is it important enough to air some very dirty laundry in a public court case?

Send Clowns
27th Oct 2005, 11:40
acbus

Straight talk? I assume you are joking, right? He is all bluster and playing to the crowds, no intention of ever giving a straight answer. In fact perhaps you should hear from David Blair of the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/10/26/do2602.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/10/26/ixopinion.html) about Galloway's "straight talking". The lies he told about the discovery of documents in Iraq are straight too are they?

West Coast
27th Oct 2005, 15:15
"I doubt that the current UK Crown Prosecution Service (very roughly equivalent to your DoJ) would even attempt to bring a prosecution against such a high-profile US media figure"

The crux of the argument comes down to would or could. Perhaps your correct with your opinion of would they, but could they is the point I'm making to counter your indignation of the US doing so. Possibility of doing so I should say lest the pedantic in you leap out.

airship
27th Oct 2005, 15:16
Point of order!

The UN oil-for-food programme was a $60 billion affair. Yet, here we are, debating whether or not a few people dishonestly obtained commissions from the sale of the oil. For example, the investigation also accuses Benon Sevan, the former head of the oil-for-food programme, of taking $147,000 in illegal payments.

All of that pales into insignificance when considering just how the bulk of the +/- $60 billion raised was actually spent...

Not forgetting that the greatest beneficiaries by far were the national governments who were able to tax all that black gold as it gushed into their economies (see here (http://www2.oecd.org/ecoinst/queries/TaxRateInfo.htm) for a comparison of International tax rates on petrol and diesel...) :}

Perhaps we would be better off in using the age-old policeman's technique of asking who benefitted most from the crime?! :uhoh:

Send Clowns
27th Oct 2005, 15:31
Actually the total we are talking about is around $600,000 (the first payment was about $147,000, the second around the $450,000 mark, although I am not sure the evidence is as strong on that one). The importance is that it all went to one individual, who is a sitting MP. The point is that it indicates corruption. That corruption might be part of what caused this man to utter treasonous statements, one as bad as those William Joyce was hanged for after WWII.

He has not declared the money, and in fact has denied it and lied about the providence of some of the evidence. He certainly knew he was lying, as he changed his wording in court to be disingenuous and give an erroneous impression, rather than to lie. In that case he took £150,000 in libel damages (currently on appeal) for editorial comment that seems now to have been justified, bringing more than $250,000 extra to consideration.

The facts, and Galloway's bluster and lies, point to a man who has been caught taking brown envelopes.

Where the rest of the money was spent is important, but that is an indictment of the UN and its officials (from the top down). It has no direct bearing on Galloway. Have you thought of starting another thread?

If we look at benefits, government benefit is not enough. Look for personal benefit.

airship
27th Oct 2005, 15:54
SC, the UN comprised 191 member states at the last count. If you prefer, consider all these nations to be the supervising board of a quoted company. It's one thing when it's the CEO or other employees who've been caught "with their hands in the till". In this case, I believe that it's the Board who've managed to deflect any accusations that they were themselves the primary beneficiaries... :}

Send Clowns
27th Oct 2005, 16:05
Not sure I'm convinced though. The rot went a long way through the "company". The boss's son was involved. Where else at "board" level was oversight not as it should be, and why? :hmm:

Maple 01
27th Oct 2005, 18:41
So how long do you think he'll get LIMA OR ALPHA JUNK?

Thing is, if he's found guilty you'll clam 'fix'
If, in the unlikely event, he gets away with it again you'll claim 'he's vindicated'
- so how can the US ever win in your eyes?

Caslance
27th Oct 2005, 20:00
Perhaps your correct with your opinion of would they, but could they is the point I'm making to counter your indignation of the US doing so.You have clearly mistaken amusement for indignation, WC.

Technically speaking they could, yes.

We seem to agree that the likelihood of their actually doing so would be vanishing small indeed, though.

Thing is, if he's found guilty you'll clam 'fix'Which is probably what you'll be shouting if he's found not guilty, Maple01.

No, wait.... I'm forgetting. You lot already know the verdict in advance of the trial, don't you? :rolleyes:

Maple 01
27th Oct 2005, 20:08
So you're saying you'll accept the verdict of the court? Well, we'll see, won't we? I'd sugest all his loyal supporters here buy him 'soap on a rope' this Christmas

Caslance
27th Oct 2005, 20:41
So you're saying you'll accept the verdict of the court?I'm saying that I'm happy to wait until the jury sees and hears the evidence from both sides and then delivers it's verdict before I decide how I feel about it.

I'll bet you can't honestly say the same though, Maple01. :p

Maple 01
27th Oct 2005, 21:21
Nope, hang the guilty bastard, that's what I say, a little of his 'indefatigable' friend's justice would sort him out IMO

But then he did advocate murdering my chums in the Gulf, which used to be called treason I think............


No doubt you're keen to say he's been misquoted/spun against?

tony draper
27th Oct 2005, 21:24
I second that Mr Maple,but as they say yer can't beat city hall, he's pissed off the establishment both sides of the pond, he will get his,he might get away with this time but he will be got, 5 will plant some kiddy porn on his puter or summat similar, and thats all he wrote.
:E

Caslance
27th Oct 2005, 21:35
So much for democracy, justice and the rule of law, eh chaps? :rolleyes:

Priceless..... blimmin' priceless. :ok:

El Grifo
27th Oct 2005, 22:35
At least some of us know who and what we are dealing with Cas.

They are so damned brash with it !!

Maple 01
28th Oct 2005, 00:56
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1846856,00.html

And if you don't like The Times

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article322855.ece

"What my wife does has nothing to do with me!"

Dance Georgie, dance!

Any comments boys? Must be all those Neo-Cons in the UN........

Send Clowns
28th Oct 2005, 07:32
So I'm not the only one who compares Galloway with Lord Haw-Haw (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/28/wgall228.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/28/ixnewstop.html).

Curious Pax
28th Oct 2005, 07:54
No view on whether their comments are right or wrong, but you should remember that the Telegraph has a vested interest in Galloway being guilty as charged given that it is in the middle of appealing a libel verdict between them that went in his favour.

Though I'm sure that wouldn't influence them....:confused:

Maple 01
28th Oct 2005, 08:36
I thought someone might try that as a defence, which is why I also quoted the Independent, sources from both ends of the political spectrum.

Curious Pax
28th Oct 2005, 08:39
If you take the blinkers off you will be able to read what I wrote and see that I wasn't defending anybody!

Send Clowns
28th Oct 2005, 08:57
Pax

They also have a vested interest in not getting sued again. I assume therefore when they quote the expert witnesses, Iraqi witnesses and the state of the building (a matter of public record and making Galloway a liar) they are telling the truth. That is the basis on which I made my judgement. Knowing that Galloway is dissembling and that the documents have been authenticated I feel I owe him no trust and the journalists as much as journalists ever get!

Send Clowns
28th Oct 2005, 12:00
Lima

Since that suit he has been less than honest about the result. The court found that the facts given were accurate, but the conclusion and commentary was unfair (the basis of the Telegraph's current appeal). He has also several times stated that the documents were faked, lied about the circumstances of the find and even said that the documents had not been forensically examined after they had been not only by the Telegraph's expert witness but by one hired by his defence team. Both Authenticated the documents.

Paterbrat
28th Oct 2005, 12:50
It is believed by some that Mr G has been given rope with which he is presently running with happily. Pejury is indictable and he apparently has been indulging. At some stage he may well be called to account. His facing down in the US may well have an ending he did not anticipate.

Capt.KAOS
28th Oct 2005, 13:01
If gorgeous George is proven to be guilty than he is in good company of names such as Siemens, DaimlerChrysler, Volvo and 2200 other companies that worked with Saddam...

Paterbrat
28th Oct 2005, 13:08
He may well be delighted with the famous company if not the results to him.

G-AWZK
28th Oct 2005, 18:51
Given that we have just seen a close and important member of the current White House team charged with obstruction of justice and making false statements to the federal grand jury, why should we believe anything that comes from the Republicans?

If anything it only strengthens the suspicion that the White House were desperate to have their war and God help anyone who got in the way or disagreed. Libby seems to have been part of the conspiracy to leak the identity of a CIA operative whose husband did not agree on the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq. The concept of smearing people who do not meet with the current administrations approval appears to be SOP, I can't help thinking that George Galloway is to befall a similar fate, if they can't find something to pin on you they will make it up. Interesting to remember that the comittee currently gunning for Galloway is the same comittee that Senator Joseph McCarthy abused to hunt for communists - real or imaginary.

Maple01, if you are a member of the armed services, distasteful as it may seem to you, you are paid by the British taxpayer to defend the free speech of people such as Mr. Galloway. He is after all a duely elected member of parliament, so don't you think it would be better to let justice take it's course before you try hanging him from a lamppost?

I would also be intrigued to see a quote where Galloway actually said that people should kill British servicemen - or did that interpretation come from the Daily Mail/Telegraph/New Labour lackeys? Would you not also agree that it is a trator who reveals the name of one of your own spies?

And before anyone tries to say it, I am not an apologist or fan of Galloway, his politics and demeanour do nothing for me. I lived in Dundee when he was a concillor there.

Maple 01
28th Oct 2005, 20:06
G-AWZK,

Er, no I'm not, I'm paid (until November) to help the organisation complete the core tasks laid out in JSP bla, nowhere does it say 'defend GG no matter what he does/says'

'Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability.'

To Gerorgie's best mate and sponsor, Mr S Hussain
(personal Iraqi death total 300-400,000+ not including 500,000 + Iranians)

“It can be said, truly said, that the Iraqi resistance is not just defending Iraq. They are defending all the Arabs"

So supporting the insurgents again Grorgie? Against your own! Nice.......Let's ignore the inconvenient facts that many of the insurgents aren't Iraqi and those that are are a small minority of the population made up mostly of disposed Bathists and religious fanatics- surely if he's on the side of 'the average Iraqi' he should be supporting the legal government of Iraq that they voted for

"Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners - Jerusalem and Baghdad.

"The daughters are crying for help and the Arab world is silent. And some of them are collaborating with the rape of these two beautiful Arab daughters."


“These poor Iraqis – ragged people, with their sandals, with their Kalashnikovs, with the lightest and most basic of weapons – are writing the names of their cities and towns in the stars, with 145 military operations every day, which has made the country ungovernable…

Pouring oil on troubled waters? Naaah, more like adding Jet-A to a burning fire - still, don't suppose those few well chosen words would provide succour and comfort to those attacking the Allied Forces in the region. Were you expecting him to explicitly spell out 'kill the infidel?' So glorifying the attacks isn't supporting attacks on UK forces?

And let's not get onto his ability to ignore the will of the elected Iraqi government and people while lauding the insurgents.......

Shoot the fokker, or keep giving him the benefit of the doubt?

Send Clowns
29th Oct 2005, 01:04
G-AWZK

Try to get your facts straight. There is some doubt that the "spy" had been active in the last 5 years in any covert capacity. therefore releasing the name is hardly treason. If the charge is proved then it seems right to take this man to task, but he is not even charged with naming the spy, rather obstruction of justice and perjury. Since it seems Galloway was guilty of perjury himself, perhaps you should reconsider your post.

As Maple has proved Galloway did praise those attacking the British forces, and indeed I believe he was even more definite at other times in his support for those fighting against them. The quote I was thinking of was around the time of the active fighting against Iraqi regulars; look it up for yourself if you want to be convinced.

Why should we let "justice be done" before condemning him for things that are beyond doubt, that he does not even deny? The corruption is in addition to the treason, and perhaps explains it. That is the only thing that is not (yet) proven.

G-AWZK
29th Oct 2005, 10:21
Send Clowns,

I have seen many idiotic post by you on these forums recently and this last one is straight from the same dimwitted mold.

It is difficult to decide where to begin whith your moronic diatribe.
There is some doubt that the "spy" had been active in the last 5 years in any covert capacity. therefore releasing the name is hardly treason.

Revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent is a federal offence. It is straight forward. It doesn't matter if they have been active or not. Releasing the name of a CIA agent for political revenge is even worse. Libby has also been indicted for obstruction of justice, perjury and providing false statements.

If Tam Dayell or Galloway had released names of SIS operatives I am sure you would be calling the public execution of those politicians.

There is no way I will reconsider anything on your command, Send Clowns.

As for supporting the Hussein regime, well, the Regan administartion provided more than just speeches. Military equpiment, intelligence and political support. Donald Rumsfeld was sent to the Middle East as a special envoy for President Reagan in December 1983 and March 1984. One of his main objectives was to establish direct contact between President Reagan and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein -- he carried a letter from Reagan to Saddam to further this process.

His trip, and other overtures by the U.S., were necessary because the Reagan administration had decided to assist Iraq in its war against Iran in order to prevent an Iranian victory, which the administration saw as contrary to U.S. interests. But until the early 1980s, U.S.-Iraqi relations had been frosty -- Iraq broke off formal diplomatic relations in 1967. So in order to enable the U.S. to set up the mechanisms needed to provide Iraq with various forms of assistance, contacts had to be established, Iraq had to be removed from the State Department's list of countries supporting terrorism, and diplomatic relations needed to be re-established.

The State Department account of the Rumsfeld-Saddam meeting, written in a staccato telegram-style, reads: “Saddam Hussein showed obvious pleasure with ... Rumsfeld’s visit ... Rumsfeld told Saddam US and Iraq had shared interests in preventing Iranian and Syrian expansion. He said the US was urging other states to curtail arms sales to Iran and believed it had successfully closed off US-controlled exports by third countries to Iran.”

The State Department said: “Our initial assessment is that meeting marked a positive milestone in development of US-Iraqi relations and will prove to be of wider benefit to US posture in the region.”

Rumsfeld then told Saddam: “Our understanding of the importance of balance in the world and the region was similar to Iraq’s.” The briefing goes on: “Regarding war with Iran, Rumsfeld said, US agreed it was not in interests of region or the West for conflict to create greater instability or for outcome to be one which weakened Iraq’s role or enhanced interests and ambitions of Iran. We thought conflict should be settled in a peaceful manner which did not expand Iran’s interests and preserved sovereignty of Iraq.”

After discussing the possibility of two oil pipelines, Rumsfeld and Saddam moved on to discussions about nations selling arms to Iran. Rumsfeld told Saddam: “Countries which acted in such a manner were short-sighted, looking at a single commercial transaction while their more fundamental interests were being harmed.”

The US had publicly declared itself “officially neutral” in the Iran-Iraq conflict when Saddam attacked the newly Islamic state, but investigative research undertaken at George Washington University’s National Security Archive shows that this declaration was a complete lie.

In 1982, as the Iran-Iraq war began to hot up, the USA quietly took Iraq off the State Department’s list of states that supported terrorism. This allowed money to start flowing from America into Saddam’s coffers.

Both the White House and the State Department bullied the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing. This made Saddam’s balance sheet look so healthy that he was able to get loans from other international banks. Unsurprisingly, Saddam spent most of his new-found wealth on weapons – which he bought from Britain and America. Joyce Battle, of the National Security Archive, says: “Although official US policy still barred the export of US military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ basis.”

When a Congressional aide asked in March 1983, whether heavy trucks sold to Iraq were intended for military purposes, a State Department official said: “We presumed that this was Iraq’s intention and had not asked.” America officially restored full formal relations with Saddam’s Ba’athist Iraq in November 1984, despite months of Iranian complaints to the world that its troops were being attacked with chemical weapons by Iraq’s army.

Reagan also knew by the end of 1983 that “with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq has become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use”.

Iraq’s use of chemical weapons was not discussed at all during Rumsfeld’s meeting, an omission entirely consistent with US policy. On November 1, 1983, the State Department noted in a memo that Saddam had acquired “CW capability”, possibly from the USA. But two sentences later, the same memo says: “Presently Iraq is at a disadvantage in its war of attrition against Iran. After a recent meeting on the war, a discussion paper was sent to the White House for a National Security Council meeting, a section of which outlines a number of measures we might take to assist Iraq.”

U.S. awareness of Iraq's chemical warfare did not deter it from initiating the policy of providing intelligence and military assistance to Iraq. There were shipments of chemical weapons precursors from several U.S. companies to Iraq during the 1980s.

The first Bush administration encouraged ordinary Iraqis to rise up against the Hussein regime and who then washed their hands of the situation when the uprising assumed a greater momentum than anticipated. This cost in the region of 100,000 Iraqis their lives.

The British Governemnt wasn't exactly squeaky clean either. The Scott Report uncovered the way in which Whitehall was working hand in glove with industry (in this case the arms industry) to circumvent export legislation. The Export Credits Guarantee Department, guarantees British exports. From 1985, the ECGD guaranteed the sale of defence equipment to Iraq to the tune of at least £25m a year. No such guarantee was available for Iran. In 1988, when the Iran/Iraq war ended, the guarantee for Iraq was quadrupled--to £100m. The chief secretary to the treasury who approved that huge leap was John Major.

In two other sections, the report exposes the central government hypocrisy--that arms to Iraq were carefully restricted throughout the period. First, all sorts of weaponry, often of the most lethal kind, got to Iraq from Britain through 'diversionary routes', chiefly through Jordan. Arms sales from Britain to Jordan were 3,000 percent (about £500 million) higher in the 1980s than in the 1970s. This had nothing to do with the expansion of the Jordanian armed forces, which were actually contracting in the 1980s. Almost all the extra weaponry went on to Iraq, and there were other conduits too: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Portugal, Singapore, Austria.

Secondly, the 'restricted' policy became much less restricted for Iraq after the ceasefire of 1988. The entire British government was tempted by the honeypot which was opened up by Saddam Hussein as he expanded his vast armed forces after the peace treaty with Iran in 1988. The guidelines were changed to liberate a whole new category of defence sales, and no one was told about it.

The effect of the change was further to expand the close friendship between the British government and that of Saddam Hussein. In July 1990, a cabinet meeting chaired by Douglas Hurd agreed to scrap all remaining restrictions on arms sales to Iraq. But before the ministers' policy could be put into effect, their beloved ally Saddam Hussein wrecked everything by invading Kuwait. The policy of selling all arms to Iraq was rather hurriedly and nervously changed to selling no arms to Iraq.

Assuming you have made it this far Send Clowns, the last statement of yours
Why should we let "justice be done" before condemning him for things that are beyond doubt, that he does not even deny? The corruption is in addition to the treason, and perhaps explains it. That is the only thing that is not (yet) proven.
Is entirely consistent with the way you portray your opinion as hard fact, and your acceptance that the death of innocent people is acceptable.

Paterbrat
29th Oct 2005, 12:03
My my thats a pretty longwinded defence of GG, in the most oblique and subtle way of course. Look look at the hare over there not at GG sitting in cover here.

The diatribade you dealt with was not a patch on what followed in the rebuttal :eek:

Send Clowns
29th Oct 2005, 13:22
G-AWK

Is your case so weak that you have to resort to personal insults? If you could read properly you would be aware that you are thereby breaking the rules of this forum.

Your own diatribe barely addresses my post or anything else discussed here - try to keep to the subject. I have more courtesy, and threads have been closed or forcibly merged for straying onto certain topics you point to, so I shall not address the majority of your post, your little rant in the middle. Where it does address the relevant issues it is also plainly based on uninformed speculation that your case must be lousy.

It might be that, despite clear ignorance of the rules here, you are better informed than the source the BBC were interviewing last night on Radio 4 on US law; he was after all not impartial. However until you tell m about your specialist background in US law, or someone challenges what he said, I will believe his assertion that if the agent in question had not been active in a covert capacity in the last 5 years and was not imminently to be so then no federal offense was commited.

Be that as it may, in case the charges in question relate to obstruction of justice, not to exposure of the identity. I told you that - yet you don't acknowledge this and go on about the release of the name.

If any crime was commited I fully support the prosecution of the person who commited it, as I would if any British citizen published the name of an SIS covert operative. I never said I opposed the prosecution or the investigation to find whoever released the names. I just tried to channel you back to the facts, rather than the garbage you were ranting.

What I can't believe is that you seem to think that the Iraqi government and UN were in some plot to smear Galloway. Evidence comes from Saddam-era Iraqi documents authenticated by Galloway's defence team and from a UN investigation (they found another US$120,000 paid to Galloway's wife (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/28/wgall28.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/28/ixnewstop.html)). No-one here is relying on the US investigation alone.

I also can't work out what the White House has to do with it. Unless you think that the investigation is being carried out by George Bush (and I would point out in case you didn't realise that he wouldn't usually do these things himself), their honesty or otherwise is irrelevant. The honesty of the investigating agency might be what you want to look at. But then you are assuming in attacking, before any prosecution, the man charged by US investigators that US investigators are both honest and infallible. So Galloway is as open to attack as Libby is; in attacking Libby with the assumption of guilt you legitimise the attacks on Galloway.

As to your last comment I am not using opinion. I am using the hard fact that Galloway broadcast comments that are clearly treasonous. They are similar to those for which Joyce was executed after WWII. He cannot deny he has made these comments, as they are recorded.

G-AWZK
29th Oct 2005, 13:57
Send Clowns,

You have been one of the worst offenders in the past of making personal insults, but now you choose to hide behind the rules?

You accuse Galloway of being a traitor and of commiting treason.
Up to this point Galloway has not been charged with Treason, but if you feel so strongly that he has broken the law under the 1998 Crime And Disorder Act, or could somehow be arrested using section 44 of the Terrorism Act (2000), why don't you go to your local police station and make a complaint? In fact I challenge you to do so. Please come back and let us know how you get on.

I am keeping very much to the subject, the accusation is that Galloway has provided support to the former Iraqi regime, what I am pointing out is that that self same regime gained far more financial, material and military support from both the British and American governments throught the 1980's.

I am also pointing out that anyone who has the temerity to disagree with and publicly denounce the Bush and/or Blair administartions will be subject to some dirty and underhand tricks to either smear their reputation (remember the Scott Ritter is a pedofile incident?) or potentialy put people's lives at risk by revealing that their family members are CIA agents.

The first batch of documents which were publicised by the Christian Science Monitor were shown to be fakes and allowed Galloway to sue for libel. Just in case you get the impression I am defending Galloway, think again. I am simply not a supporter of hypocracy.

Paterbrat
29th Oct 2005, 15:43
Treason, in the UK??? Doesn't exist. The granny who spied for years for the Soviet Union was ignored because it was felt she was too old. Anthony Blunt seemed to get away pretty lightly. These people got away with less for treason the the present gent in the US is presently getting for having possibly lied. If he has lied more will come, count on it. GG may yet have his day.

Maple 01
30th Oct 2005, 19:54
The first batch of documents which were publicised by the Christian Science Monitor were shown to be fakes and allowed Galloway to sue for libel. Just in case you get the impression I am defending Galloway, think again. I am simply not a supporter of hypocrisy.

Were as GG's lawyers never challenged the provenance of The Telegraph’s documents (why did you forget to mention that?) Why not? Because they’d been independently verified – so far from exonerating Georgie the libel trial showed that when it came to factual evidence he hadn’t a leg to stand on, the Telegraph chose the wrong battleground for their defence – they chose ‘public interest’ over ‘here’s the proof’ – but this hopefully will get sorted out on appeal. I seem to remember one J Archer using the libel courts to stifle any criticisms of his actions too…..Perhaps they could share a cell?

what I am pointing out is that that self same regime gained far more financial, material and military support from both the British and American governments throught the 1980's.

Hmmm, OK, this myth again - according to open sources the major arms suppliers to Iraq in the period 1980-2003 were France and Russia - unless the UK and the US make T-72 tanks and Mirage fighters – or perhaps they were secretly funding these arms shipments?

Who were two of the most vociferous anti-war nations? France and Russia.

Who were owed billions by their best client in the region? France and Russia.

Who knew they'd never see the money if Saddam was disposed? Guess

Moral high-ground? Capitalistic self interest - the Russians learn fast!

Send Clowns
31st Oct 2005, 01:59
G-AWZK

Where do I make personal insults? You're just making up arguments now, a dishonest method in debate. How you can call me one of the worst offenders having just printed libelous lies, spreading very nasty personal rumours about me on another thread I cannot imagine.

The complaint has been made about Galloway's broadcasts. Political considerations and modern over-caution meant he was not charged - that is the fault of the Labour govenment (of which party he was a member when some of the coments were made).

I never said that any support for Saddam's regime was right. AS Maple points out you are wrong in your assertions there anyway. That has nothing to do with Galloway. He commited treason with his support for attacks on British soldiers - the UK government never supported that, you never argued it did, so your argument is way off the thread.

The documents proved to be fakes were nothing to do with the libel case. You are just repeating one of Galloway's dishonest rants, those he spouts to whatever audience will listen uncritically. The documents in the libel case were authenticated by both sides' expert witnesses, as I told you already.

I pointed out that the CIA agent was never put at risk, as he was not in a covert role at the time. I also pointed out that if any dirty tricks were used I support a prosecution, but that doesn't fit with your assumptions about me so you conveniently ignore it.

G-AWZK
31st Oct 2005, 09:57
Alright then, whatever you boys say.

George Galloway is a traitor and should be hung drawn and quartered. The UK and the US governments and companies never provided financial or military support to Iraq. France is evil and should be nuked. The Daily Telegraph is the last bastion of truth and rectitude and everything therein should be regarded as gospel. Scooter Libby never confirmed the name of a CIA agent (who is a she not a he) and the Bush /Cheney adminsitration has never used smear tactics. Are we all singing from the same songsheet now?

Send Clowns, as I said on another thread I was unaware that the rumour I had heard related to you.

ORAC
31st Oct 2005, 10:14
Scotsman.com: Galloway hit by US criminal investigation

Geioge Galloway is under criminal investigation over allegations that he lied to the US Senate about his role in the Saddam Hussein oil-for-food bribery scandal, American prosecutors have disclosed.

The controversial MP now faces the full weight of the US justice system. Scotland on Sunday can reveal that Galloway has been referred to the US Department of Justice, two federal prosecutors and to the district attorney in Manhattan, New York, over claims that he has committed perjury. Both the Department of Justice and the Manhattan district attorney confirmed that they were investigating the Senate's claims. The Respect MP told senators under oath in May that neither he nor anyone on his behalf had benefited from the oil-for-food regime conducted by Saddam......

The decision by Senators to send their claims to all levels of the US justice system: state, federal and local, is being seen as a clear attempt to ensure at least one prosecutor takes the case to a conclusion, and as further evidence of the determination of US officials to pursue Galloway through the courts.

They have also sent their report, with the findings by the IIC, to Sir Phillip Marr, the standards commissioner for the House of Commons, and to the Charity Commission for England and Wales. The Charities Commission has stated it wants to examine the claims that illegal Iraqi oil money was laundered through a charity - the Mariam Appeal - on which Galloway was a trustee. Galloway denies the appeal was operating as a charity.

It is understood the DA in Manhattan has been asked to investigate as many of the cash transfers linked to Galloway originated from New York, so putting the case in its jurisdiction.

The Department for Justice could carry out its own investigation on behalf of the state, under the authority of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Alternatively, Gonzalez could offer help to either federal prosecutors or the DA to help them pursue the case.

The district attorney in Manhattan, Robert Morgenthau, has a long record of pursuing cases involving white-collar crime, corruption and bribery.

A spokeswoman for Senator Norm Coleman confirmed that the path to prosecution of Galloway had now begun............

Paterbrat
31st Oct 2005, 10:19
Oh my, GG , what happened to all that rope you had? You were running so freely with it. What's this on the end, a funny knot... a loop! A loop what the 'ecks that for.:confused: :\ :uhoh: :{

ORAC
31st Oct 2005, 10:29
Daily Record: GALLOWAY: THE MOVIE - MP in talks with film star Penn

UNDER-FIRE MP George Galloway is in talks to have a Hollywood movie made about his life. The Scot - who is facing claims that he took cash from Saddam Hussein - has met with US actor and director Sean Penn to discuss the project.

Galloway sidekick Ron McKay is also to feature in the film,which documents their early days in Dundee through to their infamous meetings with the Iraqi dictator. Film chiefs hope to cash in on Galloway's popularity since he blasted the US Senate over Iraq.

McKay, a writer who shares a flat with Galloway in London, said "Sean Penn took us to his mansion and we all had a good laugh - George and Sean really hit it off. I have suggested Danny de Vito plays George and George Clooney plays me. I have no idea how serious it is though - we're both a bit busy with other things."........

Paterbrat
31st Oct 2005, 10:41
Certainly looks as though he might be a bit 'tied up' in coming months.

Maple 01
31st Oct 2005, 12:01
G-AWZK

Have a look at the following and tell us where Saddam got his kit from

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground-equipment.htm


The vast majority of the army's equipment inventory was of Soviet manufacture, although French and Brazilian equipment in particular continued to be acquired in Iraq's ongoing attempt to diversify its sources of armaments.

Source GlobalSecurity.org

An let’s not forget a proportion of Western kit captured by Iraq in Kuwait appears on that list too

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-force-equipment.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-defence-equipment.htm

The equipment of the air force and the army's air corps, like that of the other services, was primarily of Soviet manufacture. After 1980, however, in an effort to diversify its sources of advanced armaments, Iraq turned to France for Mirage fighters and for attack helicopters. Between 1982 and 1987, Iraq received or ordered a variety of equipment from France, including more than 100 Mirage F-1s, about 100 Gazelle, Super-Frelon, and Alouette helicopters, and a variety of air-to-surface and air-to-air missiles, including Exocets. Other attack helicopters purchased included the Soviet Hind equipped with AT-2 Swatter, and BO-105s equipped with AS-11 antitank guided weapons. In addition, Iraq bought seventy F-7 (Chinese version of the MiG-21) fighters, assembled in Egypt. Thus Iraq's overall airpower was considerable.

Oh look, the usual suspects supplying Saddam……say…..the France and Russia mentioned in the kit list aren’t related to the France and Russia that blocked UNSCR resolutions against the old mass-murder* are they?

*AKA Mr Galloway's 'Indefatigable' friend

Capt.KAOS
31st Oct 2005, 13:07
Hmmm, OK, this myth again - according to open sources the major arms suppliers to Iraq in the period 1980-2003 were France and Russia - unless the UK and the US make T-72 tanks and Mirage fighters – or perhaps they were secretly funding these arms shipments? Myth? Look here (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html) for starters. And surely you know where the money came from to buy that French and Russian stuff? Or do you think they gave it away?

If you don't know, think of the Teicher Affidavit. (http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/hidden/teicher.htm). Open sources alone don't always tell the truth...

G-AWZK
31st Oct 2005, 13:25
In the 1970s, Saddam approached the USSR, until then his conventional weapons supplier, to buy a plant to manufacture chemical weapons, but his request was refused. Saddam then began courting the West, and received a much more favourable response.

An American company, Pfaulder Corporation of Rochester, New York, supplied the Iraqis with a blueprint in 1975, enabling them to construct their first chemical warfare plant. The plant was purchased in sections from the UK, Italy, West Germany and East Germany and assembled in Iraq. It was located at Akhashat in north-western Iraq, and the cost was around $50 million for the plant and $30 million for the safety equipment.

British, French and German multinationals turned the request down on moral grounds or because the Iraqi delivery schedule couldn't be met—not because their governments objected.

The United States took other steps to ensure that Saddam's rule was strengthened. Mobile phone systems were mainly in the military domain at the time, but the United States government approved the 1975 sale by the Karkar Corporation of San Francisco of a complete mobile telephone system. The system was to be used by the Ba'ath Party loyalists to protect the regime against any attempts to overthrow it.

The United States also supplied Saddam with satellite pictures of Iranian positions during the Iran-Iraq war.

France provided Saddam with extended-range Super Etendard aircraft capable of hitting Iranian oil facilities in the lower Gulf.

While Britain mouthed platitudes about not supplying either Iran or Iraq with lethal weapons, Britain's Plessey Electronics supplied Saddam with an electronic command & control center.

Iraq was also able to buy French-built Mirage-1 aircraft and Gazelle and Lynx helicopters from the British company Westland.

In 1978, the Italian firm Snia Technit, a subsidiary of Fiat, signed an agreement with Iraq to sell nuclear laboratories and equipment.

Whenever the declared policies of the Western countries stood in the way of an arms deal, Western governments used two methods to get around their own rules and thereby manage public opinion.

a. The first method was the well-established use of the 'front'. Thus, Western governments supplied Saddam through the pro-West countries of Jordan and Egypt, which acted as a front for Iraq. This was done to overcome Congressional, parliamentary and press hurdles, even when it was obvious to military experts that Jordan and Egypt had no use for the weapons in question. Saddam also set up his own weapons buying offices in the West, with the knowledge of the host governments. For example, Matrix Churchill was a weapons purchasing company set up in Britain. They were part and parcel of the infamous Super Gun affair.

b. The second method was to extend Saddam massive credits which he could then use for military purposes. Thus, the Banco di Lavoro in the United States gave Saddam US$4 billion worth of credits, ostensibly to buy food, but which was diverted to buy weapons with the knowledge of everyone involved. Britain's Export Credit Guarantee department kept increasing his credit and much of the money went to the direct purchase of arms. From 1985, the ECGD guaranteed the sale of defence equipment to Iraq to the tune of at least £25m a year. No such guarantee was available for Iran. In 1988, when the Iran/Iraq war ended, the guarantee for Iraq was quadrupled--to £100m. The French government guaranteed US$6 billion worth of loans to French arms makers to sell Saddam whatever he wanted.

When Saddam did in fact use chemical weapons against his own people, he did so on the afternoon of 17 March 1988, against the Kurdish city of Halabja. The United States provided diplomatic cover by initially blaming Iran for the attack. The Reagan Administration tried to prevent criticism of the atrocity. The Bush (senior) administration authorised new loans to Saddam in order to achieve the goal of increasing US exports and put the West in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record.

The US Department of Commerce licensed the export of biological materials—including a range of pathogenic agents—as well as plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities and chemical-warhead filling equipment—to Iraq until December 1989, 20 months after the Halabja atrocity.

I am not attempting to defend the French, the Germans, who also managed to sell Iraq Pershing 2 missile technology for the Iraqi Condor 2 missile system, or the Russians. They are all culpable for supporting an evil bastard, but then so is the UK and the US. They all did more than just make speeches.

Paterbrat
31st Oct 2005, 13:34
Funny how when the conversation turns to GG the flares go up the various hares are set running and the world and their brothers are all implicated.

Problem to old GG however will be that certain people will only be interested in what he said when questioned. Which on reflection may then probably be a prelude to 'what did he get' for his unquestioning support and championing for a certain well know individual who had pots of cash and a dodgy record with compacters shredders and electrical equipment in the hands of his minions. None of which was being used in the way it was origionaly intended.

Maple 01
31st Oct 2005, 16:06
The old 'Americans supplied Chemical weapons line' A slight change from "who equiped Saddam?" (France and Russia in case you've forgotten, 5000 tanks etc)

Yes, I remember that one,

The US exported dual-use equipment - stupid, seeing who they sent it to, but not actually the conspiracy to supply CW capability as you'd have us believe


During the Cold War, United States export policy focused primarily on restricting the export of sensitive "dual use" materials and technologies to the Soviet Union and its allies. This myopic approach to the non-proliferation of these materials ultimately resulted in the acquisition of unconventional weapons and missile-system technologies by several "pariah nations" with aggressive military agendas. For the United States, the reality of the dangers associated with these types of policies were realized during the Persian Gulf War. Recognizing the shortcomings of existing policies, and with the dissolution of the Soviet empire, an inquiry was initiated by the Committee into the contributions that exports from the United States played in the weapons of mass destruction programs that have flourished under the direction of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/tuite/chembio.html

Now, I found the source of your quote about US supplying CW capability to Saddam, and notice you missed a couple of points

From the website:

Hartford Web Publishing is not the author of the documents in World History Archives and does not presume to validate their accuracy or authenticity nor to release their copyright.

One of the sources quoted is:
Kenneth R. Timmermann, The Death Lobby, How the West Armed Iraq, London, 1994.
(note the title, sounds like an unbiased source....well, Indimeda like him anyway)

Intersestingly enough he wrote a book called
The French Betrayal of America, Crown Forum 2004

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400053668/102-8628497-0458555?v=glance

All this of course doesn't alter the fact that GG was caught on tape sucking-up to Saddam and that The Telegraph has authenticated Iraqi oil ministry paperwork naming him as a beneficiary of Saddam's largess

Nor does it explain his willingness to support insurgents attacking British troops

Ozzy
31st Oct 2005, 16:53
The Scot - who is facing claims that he took cash from Saddam Hussein - has met with US actor and director Sean Penn to discuss the project. I thought Sean Penn was making his living as a reporter these days?

I would have thought that fantasy director, Michael Moore, would have been who GG would have been courting....

Ozzy

El Grifo
31st Oct 2005, 17:43
Looks like the US case is weakening before it has even been brought to court.

Todays Scotsman newspaper :-

Senator Coleman said at the weekend that he was "fairly confident Mr Galloway will be brought to justice" and that this would be the "final nail in the coffin".

A US Justice Department spokesman confirmed the six allegations would be considered, saying: "We're obligated to investigate any potentially criminal matter brought to our attention, review it and take it from there."

However, the prospect of a jury trial and prison sentence, if the perjury charges are proven, did not appear to faze Mr Galloway's supporters.

Ron McKay, his spokesman, insisted the former Glasgow MP would head to the United States in any case to face his critics directly. "We will be going to the States in the next few weeks, charges or not, to answer any questions head-on," Mr McKay told The Scotsman.

The press officer, who was also implicated in the UN report, added the "evidence" against his boss centred around claims that his wife had benefited from the Iraqi regime, rather than Mr Galloway - a fact acknowledged by Senator Coleman, who still insists the MP would have known that his wife was in receipt of cheques from Mr Zureikat. This, Mr McKay claimed, was double standards.

Supporters have been buoyed by a denial of the allegations from the lawyer of Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi foreign minister, whose testimony had been crucial to link Mr Galloway to oil payments.

Hands up those that are surprised !!

Ozzy
31st Oct 2005, 18:10
who was also implicated in the UN report, Interesting, Galloway is being accused by the US of lying to the committee, while the UN (not an institution the US would call "friendly") report directly states that Galloway received vouchers (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-10-28T063221Z_01_KWA756581_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ-PROBE.xml) from the oil for food program. So I guess the UN got it wrong too...:E

All the US has to do is catch GG in one lie and that's it...

Ozzy

Paterbrat
1st Nov 2005, 16:27
I dragged but did not inhale. Logged alongside Father I cannot tell a lie, what might be GG's historical quote? 'Vouchers? Cash? Never! Lying scum, I'll sue."

Paterbrat
1st Nov 2005, 16:31
Hmm politics in a multitude of countries would suffer, the courts would be blocked for ages. Impractical, lets just stick with the individual headline grabbers. Pick them off one by one.

Paterbrat
1st Nov 2005, 16:37
Consider him gone.

Ozzy
1st Nov 2005, 16:42
I'll offer up Blair:E:E

Ozzy

Paterbrat
1st Nov 2005, 16:51
Good heavens is he still hanging around :confused:

Spinflight
4th Nov 2005, 20:54
Well I didn't think Galloway had a chance of winning his libel trial. I was proved wrong, though the judgement appeared strange at the time. It is under appeal and I expect justice to be done.

Now it turns out that his wife was also taking backhanders in one way or the other. Can't quite understand where his defenders are coming from, other than the old maxim that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.... 'Tis true that he has yet to be found guilt by a criminal court, though as I remember the senate committee found him guilty of being involved with the mass corruption of the Oil for Food program.

Maybe those who stood up for the Oil for Food program on humanitarian grounds (the statistics for which were provided by that weel known humanitarian Saddam Hussein) now feel a little bit daft?

ORAC
5th Nov 2005, 05:45
Work out where his real interests have always been:

Guardian:

George Galloway yesterday defended his decision to miss this week's key Commons vote on new anti-terror legislation, claiming he was legally obliged to attend a lucrative speaking engagement instead. The Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, who swept to victory on an anti-war platform, was 350 miles away in Cork on his one-man tour, An Audience With George Galloway, subtitled The Mother of All One Man Shows.

The government prevailed by just one vote in a section of the bill outlawing the glorification of terrorism. The MP said dates for the speaking engagement were fixed before the schedule for the Commons vote was known. He told the Guardian that the £1,000 fees from each show on the tour are needed to finance Respect.

But critics yesterday accused him of letting down constituents. They pointed to his voting record in the Commons, where he has spoken in four debates since the general election and asked one written question. The Commons analysts Public Whip calculate he has taken part in just 13% of parliamentary votes.

Mr Galloway said: "If I had known in advance that the government would get through an amendment by just one vote and if there were not a contract which would have meant losing thousands, I would have been there, although it would still have been a difficult amendment for me to vote for. I may be prosecuted under this bill. The amendment would only have made it less bad. I have to balance my time between parliament, the constituency and the duties I have as a national figure in Respect, as an international figure and as a fundraiser."

Murad Quershi, a Labour member of the London assembly, said locals wanted a hard working constituency MP. "George Galloway misses a vital vote on the anti-terror bill that has concerned thousands of Muslim families. He was in Ireland touring his commercial one-man show. There's a sense of his priorities for you."

Graham Taylor, agent for the ousted Labour MP Oona King in May's ill-tempered campaign, said the voters deserved better. "All he seems to do is grandstand. His one man show is at the Hackney Empire, close to here next week. It will probably be the best chance his constituents get to see him.".....

Stafford
5th Nov 2005, 06:24
Lima AJ

Blunkett ? Sacrifice ? I don't think so - more like suicide !

BTW, it is a well known and effective tactic of GG's to throw so much mud at the establishment and everyone around him that we lose sight of the fact that he is a treacherous, scheming little sh:mad: t. His utterance of the word "Respect" after his infamous arse kissing visit to Baghdad alone, let alone his shoddy character, should choke him.

There is no doubt that he knows how to play to a sympathetic audience but I think payback time is coming no matter how much bluff and bluster the Scottish toerag can throw around.

I wonder if we can put him in Gitmo ? :E

ORAC
6th Nov 2005, 04:21
Sunday Times: Galloway oil-cash claims to be probed

THE Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is to examine allegations that large sums of cash were paid to associates of George Galloway under the United Nations oil for food programme.

A senior Whitehall official said this weekend that the SFO would look at claims that $150,000 (£84,000) in Iraqi oil proceeds had been paid to Amina Naji Abu Zayyad, the maverick MP’s estranged wife. She has denied any wrongdoing. The SFO is also scrutinising a $15,666 payment made to Ron McKay, Galloway’s spokesman. McKay has said the payment was intended for a business account to which it was later transferred and was nothing to do with oil. The SFO will also look at a $446,000 payment to the Mariam appeal, set up to pay for treatment for an Iraqi girl suffering from leukaemia.

The Whitehall official said the allegations against Galloway had been entered on an official British register of complaints that the SFO was duty-bound to investigate. The alleged payments were detailed last month in a Senate report on the oil for food programme..........

Investigators from the SFO will consult Scotland Yard fraud detectives to establish the scope of any inquiry.

Techman
6th Nov 2005, 06:42
Could ORAC please post an opinion of his own?

I realise that no cut and pasting might involve a bit more work, or even having to formulate and opinion of your own. Oh, the horror!

ORAC
6th Nov 2005, 07:53
I think the facts speak for themselves....... :hmm:

chuks
7th Nov 2005, 07:10
I have been watching your Mr Galloway's antics with some amusement for a while now. He sure gets a lot of mileage out of pulling Uncle Sam's whiskers, doesn't he?

I think that he might just get himself into trouble by believing his own bullsh*t, and that rather soon, if he wants to go head-to-head with the US Senate.

What you need to understand about US politics is that our legislature has always had a bad reputation. Mark Twain once wrote that we have no native criminal class in the USA with the possible exception of our legislature. This was taken for fair comment. And things have not really improved since then, around 1890, I guess. So the legislators are very reluctant to crack down on rascals, following that maxim about not throwing stones when living in glass houses. But, given sufficient provocation, they do occasionally rise up and smite the guilty.

George sure does look guilty. If that judgement against the Telegraph is indeed reversed then that point under dispute shall be a matter of public record, so that I await that with some interest. As it is, it looks as if Galloway's blustering to the maximum extent possible, trying to look imposing from a position of weakness. Very like his once best friend Mr S. Hussein, in fact, and look where that got him.

If yer man does decide to take some time out from his busy schedule of public speaking engagements to return to jousting with the US Senate then he might well find himself under indictment for perjury. That's a fairly rare thing but it does happen now and then.

It's probably just a case, so far, of the Senate having taken a measured approach and finding that the costs outweigh the benefits. Essentially Galloway would enjoy a public forum when he could spout his version of the truth and then pose as a martyr when convicted on the facts of the case. Much the same, in fact, as his best friend there getting a major whipping in Gulf War I and then baldly claiming victory.

There is just no reasonable way of prevailing against such charlatans except to let history take its course with them. I think most people from the reasonable middle spectrum tend to ignore such characters, so that the rabid friends and foes can knock spots off each other without moderation until the fun goes out of the game. He will go down in history as just a footnote, I assume.

It may be that George's estranged wife will spill the beans about what they were up to there with these mostly unaccounted-for contributions to various charities, in the course of a messy divorce if it comes to that. I look forward to reading all about this sort of stuff in the boulevard press if not here in Jet Blast.

At least no dogs have been killed to furnish this scandal.

Paterbrat
7th Nov 2005, 12:52
The rope, the rope. He has had a fair old hank and the day may well be nigh when it may yet hang him high as Haman.

Stafford
7th Nov 2005, 13:33
Galloway on the Gallows ?

There's just something about the execrable little turd, isn't there Paterbrat ? :}

He reminds me of some of the Glasgow wide boys I served alongside (with, but I needed at translator :E ) who used to go home on leave wrapped in longish, ludicrous Gaberdine coats.

Yesterday's Chav ?

Capt.KAOS
7th Nov 2005, 14:45
17 months ago Condi Rice (then-National Security Adviser) publicly promised a full criminal inquiry on Ahmed Chalabi who tipped off Tehran that US agents had cracked the secret codes of its intelligence service. The Federal Bureau of Investigation hasn't interviewed Mr. Chalabi himself, although he has been in the US for many times and will be in the country shortly to speak in front of a neocon thinktank.

Ever wonder why Galloway seem to be so much more important to the current government than Chalabi or the fake Niger documents?

ORAC
7th Nov 2005, 14:55
Except its not the administration, they have never even mentioned him, its a bipartisan Senate committee......

Capt.KAOS
7th Nov 2005, 15:21
its a bipartisan Senate committee...... ... presided by (Rep) Roberts, who, of course, has no contact at all with the White House. Don't insult your own intelligence ORAC, bipartisan, yeah right... :hmm:

Flypuppy
7th Nov 2005, 15:21
He is a funny old stick is George, and all this hoo-haa over Iraq is a little ironic. In the late 1970s, Galloway was a founding member of the Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq (CARDRI), which campaigned against Saddam Hussein's regime in response to its suppression of the Iraqi Communist Party. He was critical of America and Britain's later role in supporting Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War and was involved in protests at Iraq's cultural centre in London in the 1980s. At that time about the only politician who was saying anything about Iraq.

My uncle was a Tory councillor for Dundee during the 1970's and early 1980's and detested Galloway. It was at this time that Galloway was instrumental in having the Palestinian flag flown over the City Chambers and twinning the city with a Palestinian town on the West Bank. I think it was around this time that the Dundee Labour party was riven with corruption and one of their number ended up in jail. Galloway was elected as MP for Glasgow Hillhead in 1987, and was immediately involved in a scandal over expenses for a trip to Greece under the auspices of a charity. He only managed to scrape through a deselection meeting by the skin of his teeth and laost a vote of confidence at one stage.
If nothing else he is a political survivor.

My sister lived in the Glasgow Hillhead constituency during the period that it was held by Roy Jenkins and then when he was replaced by Galloway (do you think GG is stalking members of my family?) and as a constituency MP GG is shite and the poor people of Bethal Green are likely to discover.

It is difficult to know if GG is guilty or not, he is as slippery as an eel in a bucket of snot, but you can't help thinking he is some sort of sacrificial beast for the neo-cons.

ORAC
7th Nov 2005, 16:17
Had a long day Capt. Kaos?

The committee which Gorgeous George appeared in front of is the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Subcommittees.Home&SubcommitteeID=11&Initials=PSI), the Chairman is Senator Norm Coleman, admittedly he's a Republican, but he was a Democrat up until 1996 and was an anti-war activist in his younger days, not exactly a neo-con. The committee itself consists of 7 Republicans and 6 Democrats.

ps. Senator Roberts isn't a member, he chairs the Intelligence committee.....

Paterbrat
7th Nov 2005, 18:25
Slippery as an eel in a bucket of snot. Now there Flypuppy is a powerful image that about sums GG up and the surroundings he appears to most comfortable in.

Capt.KAOS
7th Nov 2005, 21:05
Had a long day Capt. Kaos? I'm used to that ORAC.

Where did I say Roberts was a neocon? And I didnt say he was a member, I said he "presided" the Senate committee. Seems you had a long day yourself?

CWL2YOW
9th Nov 2005, 16:17
I can't find a link to the story on the beeb, but I saw on wikipedia that K. Natwar Singh has been sacked as India's foreign minister amid allegations he had illegally benefited from the Oil-for-Food Programme in Iraq.

How long will it been before he points the finger at Gorgeous George?

edit to say here's the link BBC story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4414504.stm)

ORAC
9th Nov 2005, 19:36
Oh my Capt KAOS, perhaps you can tell me how he "presided" over a committee of which he is not a member?

Tuned In
9th Nov 2005, 21:02
Kaos

The Niger documents were irrelevant. They were not the intelligence found by the UK SIS, on which they still believe that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Niger. They are however part of the BBC lies about the issue, and Joe Wilson's lies - Wilson whose only substantive finding investigating the issue supported the likelihood that Iraq had tried to buy uranium, as Bush said and the SIS believe.

This website (http://theamericanexpatinuk.********.com/) presents the story in far more detail than could fit in a short aside here.

El Grifo
18th Dec 2005, 19:10
Been in Cuba for the last month or so, never had much time to follow the Galloway situation.

last I heard, the "Permanent Sub-Commitee on Investigations" stated that they now had enough evidence against him and planned to summon him at the earliest.

In true Georgy fashion, the alleged perpetrator said "Bring it on"

Can anyone tell me if anything ever was "Brought on"

acbus1
19th Dec 2005, 06:30
In true Georgy fashion, the alleged perpetrator said "Bring it on"
Typically phlegmatic.......snot notwithstanding.

Lets hope they televise all of it! :}

El Grifo
19th Dec 2005, 08:31
Yeah, but televise all of WHAT ???

acbus1
19th Dec 2005, 09:02
The bringing on!

XXTSGR
19th Dec 2005, 09:06
Since there has been no action at all since the dramatic announcement that they had all the evidence they needed, I think we can conclude that it was simply PR rather than the truth. The committee appears to be hoping that, if they sling enough mud, some of it will stick.

ORAC
19th Dec 2005, 09:39
I repeat my posts of 21st October and 6th. The committee did what it said it would do, the evidence has been passed to several legal bodies. Such investigations take time, I would not expect any action for several months at the least, but that does not mean nothing is being done. The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind extremely fine....

Scotsman.com: Galloway hit by US criminal investigation

Geioge Galloway is under criminal investigation over allegations that he lied to the US Senate about his role in the Saddam Hussein oil-for-food bribery scandal, American prosecutors have disclosed.

The controversial MP now faces the full weight of the US justice system. Scotland on Sunday can reveal that Galloway has been referred to the US Department of Justice, two federal prosecutors and to the district attorney in Manhattan, New York, over claims that he has committed perjury. Both the Department of Justice and the Manhattan district attorney confirmed that they were investigating the Senate's claims. The Respect MP told senators under oath in May that neither he nor anyone on his behalf had benefited from the oil-for-food regime conducted by Saddam......

The decision by Senators to send their claims to all levels of the US justice system: state, federal and local, is being seen as a clear attempt to ensure at least one prosecutor takes the case to a conclusion, and as further evidence of the determination of US officials to pursue Galloway through the courts.

They have also sent their report, with the findings by the IIC, to Sir Phillip Marr, the standards commissioner for the House of Commons, and to the Charity Commission for England and Wales. The Charities Commission has stated it wants to examine the claims that illegal Iraqi oil money was laundered through a charity - the Mariam Appeal - on which Galloway was a trustee. Galloway denies the appeal was operating as a charity.

It is understood the DA in Manhattan has been asked to investigate as many of the cash transfers linked to Galloway originated from New York, so putting the case in its jurisdiction.

The Department for Justice could carry out its own investigation on behalf of the state, under the authority of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Alternatively, Gonzalez could offer help to either federal prosecutors or the DA to help them pursue the case.

The district attorney in Manhattan, Robert Morgenthau, has a long record of pursuing cases involving white-collar crime, corruption and bribery.

A spokeswoman for Senator Norm Coleman confirmed that the path to prosecution of Galloway had now begun............
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday Times: Galloway oil-cash claims to be probed

THE Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is to examine allegations that large sums of cash were paid to associates of George Galloway under the United Nations oil for food programme.

A senior Whitehall official said this weekend that the SFO would look at claims that $150,000 (£84,000) in Iraqi oil proceeds had been paid to Amina Naji Abu Zayyad, the maverick MP’s estranged wife. She has denied any wrongdoing. The SFO is also scrutinising a $15,666 payment made to Ron McKay, Galloway’s spokesman. McKay has said the payment was intended for a business account to which it was later transferred and was nothing to do with oil. The SFO will also look at a $446,000 payment to the Mariam appeal, set up to pay for treatment for an Iraqi girl suffering from leukaemia.

The Whitehall official said the allegations against Galloway had been entered on an official British register of complaints that the SFO was duty-bound to investigate. The alleged payments were detailed last month in a Senate report on the oil for food programme..........Investigators from the SFO will consult Scotland Yard fraud detectives to establish the scope of any inquiry.

slim_slag
19th Dec 2005, 10:45
That means Galloway is probably buggered. The new extradition treaty means the US can demand extradition of UK citizens without providing any proof to a UK court that there is a case to answer (Blunkett strangely agreed that the same principal does not apply to UK extradition requests, he agreed that US citizens should have better protection than UK citizens). Galloway made a load of senators look stupid and they aren't nice people to do business with, bet they have Galloway a nice bed waiting in The Big House.

BenThere
19th Dec 2005, 11:15
I see, Slim. You really believe such a treaty exists on those terms?

Dovetails nicely with the 'Blair as Poodle' theme.

By the way, the Senate has no court jurisdiction, and has no beds ready in the Big House. Convictions have to be obtained through due process (unless you're an unlawful combatant, let me hasten to add.)

airship
19th Dec 2005, 12:54
If the Yanks want him that badly, they can always use an "extraordinary rendition"... :=

El Grifo
19th Dec 2005, 12:59
Cheers Orac. That is what I was looking for.