I merely record this here, in case anyone wants to either (1) read it in full or (2) refer to it subsequently. George Galloway made this statement to the Sub-Committee today. He spoke as courageously in the House of Commons before the last UK election, he was barred from his party as a result, and he was considered so much a voice of the people that he was returned in the election as an Independent Member. He has been traduced ever since he started speaking against the war in Iraq. I believe him to be an honorable man.
"Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader. and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one - and neither has anyone on my behalf.
"Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice.
"Now I want to deal with the pages that relate to me in this dossier and I want to point out areas where there are - let's be charitable and say errors. Then I want to put this in the context where I believe it ought to be. On the very first page of your document about me you assert that I have had 'many meetings' with Saddam Hussein. This is false.
"I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be described as "many meetings" with Saddam Hussein.
"As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defence made of his.
"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce.
"You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do.
"Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from the source is true, that I am 'the owner of a company which has made substantial profits from trading in Iraqi oil'.
"Senator, I do not own any companies, beyond a small company whose entire purpose, whose sole purpose, is to receive the income from my journalistic earnings from my employer, Associated Newspapers, in London. I do not own a company that's been trading in Iraqi oil. And you have no business to carry a quotation, utterly unsubstantiated and false, implying otherwise.
"Now you have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names from Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet government in Baghdad. If you had any of the letters against me that you had against Zhirinovsky, and even Pasqua, they would have been up there in your slideshow for the members of your committee today.
"You have my name on lists provided to you by the Duelfer inquiry, provided to him by the convicted bank robber, and fraudster and conman Ahmed Chalabi who many people to their credit in your country now realise played a decisive role in leading your country into the disaster in Iraq.
"There were 270 names on that list originally. That's somehow been filleted down to the names you chose to deal with in this committee. Some of the names on that committee included the former secretary to his Holiness Pope John Paul II, the former head of the African National Congress Presidential office and many others who had one defining characteristic in common: they all stood against the policy of sanctions and war which you vociferously prosecuted and which has led us to this disaster.
"You quote Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Well, you have something on me, I've never met Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Your sub-committee apparently has. But I do know that he's your prisoner, I believe he's in Abu Ghraib prison. I believe he is facing war crimes charges, punishable by death. In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Airbase, in Guantanamo Bay, including I may say, British citizens being held in those places.
"I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances. But you quote 13 words from Dahar Yassein Ramadan whom I have never met. If he said what he said, then he is wrong.
"And if you had any evidence that I had ever engaged in any actual oil transaction, if you had any evidence that anybody ever gave me any money, it would be before the public and before this committee today because I agreed with your Mr Greenblatt [Mark Greenblatt, legal counsel on the committee].
"Your Mr Greenblatt was absolutely correct. What counts is not the names on the paper, what counts is where's the money. Senator? Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars of money? The answer to that is nobody. And if you had anybody who ever paid me a penny, you would have produced them today.
"Now you refer at length to a company names in these documents as Aredio Petroleum. I say to you under oath here today: I have never heard of this company, I have never met anyone from this company. This company has never paid a penny to me and I'll tell you something else: I can assure you that Aredio Petroleum has never paid a single penny to the Mariam Appeal Campaign. Not a thin dime. I don't know who Aredio Petroleum are, but I daresay if you were to ask them they would confirm that they have never met me or ever paid me a penny.
"Whilst I'm on that subject, who is this senior former regime official that you spoke to yesterday? Don't you think I have a right to know? Don't you think the Committee and the public have a right to know who this senior former regime official you were quoting against me interviewed yesterday actually is?
"Now, one of the most serious of the mistakes you have made in this set of documents is, to be frank, such a schoolboy howler as to make a fool of the efforts that you have made. You assert on page 19, not once but twice, that the documents that you are referring to cover a different period in time from the documents covered by The Daily Telegraph which were a subject of a libel action won by me in the High Court in England late last year.
"You state that The Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and 1993 whilst you are dealing with documents dating from 2001. Senator, The Daily Telegraph's documents date identically to the documents that you were dealing with in your report here. None of The Daily Telegraph's documents dealt with a period of 1992, 1993. I had never set foot in Iraq until late in 1993 - never in my life. There could possibly be no documents relating to Oil-for-Food matters in 1992, 1993, for the Oil-for-Food scheme did not exist at that time.
"And yet you've allocated a full section of this document to claiming that your documents are from a different era to the Daily Telegraph documents when the opposite is true. Your documents and the Daily Telegraph documents deal with exactly the same period.
"But perhaps you were confusing the Daily Telegraph action with the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor did indeed publish on its front pages a set of allegations against me very similar to the ones that your committee have made. They did indeed rely on documents which started in 1992, 1993. These documents were unmasked by the Christian Science Monitor themselves as forgeries.
"Now, the neo-con websites and newspapers in which you're such a hero, senator, were all absolutely ****-a-hoop at the publication of the Christian Science Monitor documents, they were all absolutely convinced of their authenticity. They were all absolutely convinced that these documents showed me receiving $10 million from the Saddam regime. And they were all lies.
"In the same week as the Daily Telegraph published their documents against me, the Christian Science Monitor published theirs which turned out to be forgeries and the British newspaper, Mail on Sunday, purchased a third set of documents which also upon forensic examination turned out to be forgeries. So there's nothing fanciful about this. Nothing at all fanciful about it.
"The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial activities with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact. It's a proven fact that these forged documents existed and were being circulated amongst right-wing newspapers in Baghdad and around the world in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi regime.
"Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.
“I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.
"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth.
"Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Haliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer.
"Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.
"Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government."
Galloway testimony, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
Galloway testimony, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Philadelphia Eagle
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:50 am
Galloway testimony, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
Sorry Spot - I can't let you get away with that nonsense.
Galloway is a disgrace. He has been exposed as a thief and a liar.
He appeared on the floor of the Senate and was questioned by both Republican and Democrat senators. He got his facts wrong and accused one Democrat of supporting the war in Iraq when in fact the same Senator was opposed to it.
The questioning was led by Senator Norm Coleman who stated afterwards in an interview for the media that Galloway had failed miserably to refute documentary evidence that he had accepted bribes from Saddam Hussein in the Oil for Food Program.
Galloway was finally kicked out of the British Labor Party when he became too extreme in his views even for them. He visited Iraq on the eve of the invasion and offered his support to Saddam.
He then stood as an representative for his own newly formed Party in your recent election on an anti-American ticket in an area of London which is heavily populated by like-minded people from the mid-east. The result was inevitable and he was returned to be a Representative much to the embarassment of Tony Blair.
I can't believe that this person is in any way an example of normal British political views whether people are in support of the war in Iraq or against it.
His victory speech was a diatribe against Blair
Galloway is a disgrace. He has been exposed as a thief and a liar.
He appeared on the floor of the Senate and was questioned by both Republican and Democrat senators. He got his facts wrong and accused one Democrat of supporting the war in Iraq when in fact the same Senator was opposed to it.
The questioning was led by Senator Norm Coleman who stated afterwards in an interview for the media that Galloway had failed miserably to refute documentary evidence that he had accepted bribes from Saddam Hussein in the Oil for Food Program.
Galloway was finally kicked out of the British Labor Party when he became too extreme in his views even for them. He visited Iraq on the eve of the invasion and offered his support to Saddam.
He then stood as an representative for his own newly formed Party in your recent election on an anti-American ticket in an area of London which is heavily populated by like-minded people from the mid-east. The result was inevitable and he was returned to be a Representative much to the embarassment of Tony Blair.
I can't believe that this person is in any way an example of normal British political views whether people are in support of the war in Iraq or against it.
His victory speech was a diatribe against Blair
America the Beautiful :-6
website - home.comcast.net/~nmusgrave/
website - home.comcast.net/~nmusgrave/
Galloway testimony, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
Philadelphia Eagle wrote: I can't believe that this person is in any way an example of normal British political views whether people are in support of the war in Iraq or against it.We may have such different views in that I've been to meetings he's addressed. He isn't a con man, he isn't a crook, he's a patriot who has spoken of a great wrong, both before and after its commission.
Philadelphia Eagle wrote: His victory speech was a diatribe against BlairHis victory speech was a diatribe against the returning officer for his constituency, actually, and not without good reason.
Philadelphia Eagle wrote: His victory speech was a diatribe against BlairHis victory speech was a diatribe against the returning officer for his constituency, actually, and not without good reason.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Galloway testimony, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
George Galloway, a worthy successor to Rodney "I can't get any respect" Dangerfield. Truely a legend in his own mind, and those of modern fairy tale lovers. 
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill
Galloway testimony, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
posted by flopstock
Okay guys, but setting aside for the moment whether he is a great patriot or an off the wall extremist..
is what he said in his statement posted here true? Has any kind of independent investigation learned anything that would tend to cause you to believe one side over the other on this issue?
If there is any real evidence he would be prosecuted. The daily Tegraph printed these same allegations using the same documentary evidence the senate commitee had, galloway sued for libel and won £150,000 in damages, the newspaper had to pay legal costs of £1.2 million. There were only a couple of documents he hadn't seen begore and a statement from the same Iraqui that told you there were WMD's in Iraq, which makes you wonder a bit.
If there was any basis to this the UK Parliamentary Privileges commitee would bar him as an MP, If new Labour could stop him standing as an MP they would have no hesitation about doing so, they kicked him out the labour party. The labour establishment absolutely hate him and want him to shut up but they can't.
You can't accuse someone of something like this without being prepared to follow it through with legal action. Don't threaten, do it. You can just bet Galloway wants them to prosecute him, he would love the publicity and their case would not stand up in court. Just because somebody is accused of something by a senate committee does not mean he is guilty. Substantiate the allegation or shut up. They must have been incredibly naive not to know what would happen or to expect him to be respectful of them. It was like watching genteel old ladies confronted by a rottweiler
You just bet he wants his day in court but he won't get it because there is no case to answer. The allegations he has made about halliburton and other american companies-he is hoping they decide to sue him for libel, I would be willing to take bets they don't bother.
On a strictly factual basis the committee don't have a case and are just making spurious allegations. If they can't back up the allegations they shouldn't make them. If they didn't know what to expect they have been incredibly naive not to expect him to be hostile. What makes the whole thing ridiculous and laughable and unbelieveable is there would be no point in bribing, him he had no influence.
Philadelphia Eagle
I can't believe that this person is in any way an example of normal British political views whether people are in support of the war in Iraq or against it.
Not particulary representative no, but many think he is right about Iraq and asking questions that need to be answered, publicity like this keeps the issue in the media and gets him a lot of credibility for the simple reason that in debate he can more than hold his own.
His victory speech was a diatribe against Blair
Of course it was, that was only to be expected, Tony Blair is merely the prime minister and as such railing against him is not deemed as unpatriotic. He is fair game. It's strange, enyone complaining about the president or making jokes seems to be frowned upon in the US as not quite the thing to do. Heremaking fun of politicians is a national sport. If I call TB a lying devious pillock most some of the brits might disagree-or not- but very few if any would find it offensive.
Why is it you are so ready to believe allegations of corruption about someone like George Galloway and Russian and french politicians but not about americans?
I notice senator Levin made comment that they had found some impropriety amongst american companies in the oil for iraq scandal.
Gorgeous George-as he gets called here is a sleazeball in some ways, but not I think in this.
Okay guys, but setting aside for the moment whether he is a great patriot or an off the wall extremist..
is what he said in his statement posted here true? Has any kind of independent investigation learned anything that would tend to cause you to believe one side over the other on this issue?
If there is any real evidence he would be prosecuted. The daily Tegraph printed these same allegations using the same documentary evidence the senate commitee had, galloway sued for libel and won £150,000 in damages, the newspaper had to pay legal costs of £1.2 million. There were only a couple of documents he hadn't seen begore and a statement from the same Iraqui that told you there were WMD's in Iraq, which makes you wonder a bit.
If there was any basis to this the UK Parliamentary Privileges commitee would bar him as an MP, If new Labour could stop him standing as an MP they would have no hesitation about doing so, they kicked him out the labour party. The labour establishment absolutely hate him and want him to shut up but they can't.
You can't accuse someone of something like this without being prepared to follow it through with legal action. Don't threaten, do it. You can just bet Galloway wants them to prosecute him, he would love the publicity and their case would not stand up in court. Just because somebody is accused of something by a senate committee does not mean he is guilty. Substantiate the allegation or shut up. They must have been incredibly naive not to know what would happen or to expect him to be respectful of them. It was like watching genteel old ladies confronted by a rottweiler
You just bet he wants his day in court but he won't get it because there is no case to answer. The allegations he has made about halliburton and other american companies-he is hoping they decide to sue him for libel, I would be willing to take bets they don't bother.
On a strictly factual basis the committee don't have a case and are just making spurious allegations. If they can't back up the allegations they shouldn't make them. If they didn't know what to expect they have been incredibly naive not to expect him to be hostile. What makes the whole thing ridiculous and laughable and unbelieveable is there would be no point in bribing, him he had no influence.
Philadelphia Eagle
I can't believe that this person is in any way an example of normal British political views whether people are in support of the war in Iraq or against it.
Not particulary representative no, but many think he is right about Iraq and asking questions that need to be answered, publicity like this keeps the issue in the media and gets him a lot of credibility for the simple reason that in debate he can more than hold his own.
His victory speech was a diatribe against Blair
Of course it was, that was only to be expected, Tony Blair is merely the prime minister and as such railing against him is not deemed as unpatriotic. He is fair game. It's strange, enyone complaining about the president or making jokes seems to be frowned upon in the US as not quite the thing to do. Heremaking fun of politicians is a national sport. If I call TB a lying devious pillock most some of the brits might disagree-or not- but very few if any would find it offensive.
Why is it you are so ready to believe allegations of corruption about someone like George Galloway and Russian and french politicians but not about americans?
I notice senator Levin made comment that they had found some impropriety amongst american companies in the oil for iraq scandal.
Gorgeous George-as he gets called here is a sleazeball in some ways, but not I think in this.
Galloway testimony, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
What is curious, then, is that even here in England, many people who were actually anti-war and anti-Blair actually disliked `gorgeous George` even more!!!
Galloway testimony, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
posted by flopstock
We do the same thing you do with regards to our politicians. I think it's more of a case of 'It's all right for me to make fun of, or complain about my uncle 'sam', he is 'my' uncle after all..but the guy down the street has no business trashing a member of 'my' family.'
Good job you're not european then, if you saw the kind of abuse that gets bandied around about the french and germans and other nationalities and what they say about us if you took it personally then you would never go abroad cos they all hate the british.
posted by flopstock
Well, actually, I'm not. That's why I asked it there were any 3rd party investigative evidence either way on the issue. But I would like to see something. Otherwise, it's just political maneuvers on one side vs political maneuvers from the other..
What third party investigative evidence? There isn't any that's the whole point about this. Are you now saying the senate committee can't investigate properly? They came to a concluscion without checking the authenticity of the evidence or contacting the accused.
On the other hand where companies are concerned there will be substantial documentary evidence, so it will be interesting to see if they haul company CEO's (can they do that) in front of them to answer the allegation and if they can defenc themselves.
George Galloway is an irrelevance to the real issue. He is good fun to watch in action though.
We do the same thing you do with regards to our politicians. I think it's more of a case of 'It's all right for me to make fun of, or complain about my uncle 'sam', he is 'my' uncle after all..but the guy down the street has no business trashing a member of 'my' family.'
Good job you're not european then, if you saw the kind of abuse that gets bandied around about the french and germans and other nationalities and what they say about us if you took it personally then you would never go abroad cos they all hate the british.
posted by flopstock
Well, actually, I'm not. That's why I asked it there were any 3rd party investigative evidence either way on the issue. But I would like to see something. Otherwise, it's just political maneuvers on one side vs political maneuvers from the other..
What third party investigative evidence? There isn't any that's the whole point about this. Are you now saying the senate committee can't investigate properly? They came to a concluscion without checking the authenticity of the evidence or contacting the accused.
On the other hand where companies are concerned there will be substantial documentary evidence, so it will be interesting to see if they haul company CEO's (can they do that) in front of them to answer the allegation and if they can defenc themselves.
George Galloway is an irrelevance to the real issue. He is good fun to watch in action though.