The Iraq thread 4

[Bordoy 0]

The closest thing he has said AFAIK is to "stay strong against the invaders" and that the invading goverments are going to "burn in hell."

Personally I think this guy is a mirror image of "kill and/or convert em' ragheads" types.

He also said the invading troops will also burn in hell.

[denoir 0]

Well, that's not really something I can take as a fact on such a vague reference.

Anyway, the political attack aside, he gave a very good defence. It could be argued though that given the very weak evidence, it wasn't too difficult.

First of all, the documents in question have already failed a forensic analysis. The newspaper "the Christian Science Monitor" sent them to analysis and it was concluded that they were fakes.

The documents in question and the whole story were first started by Ahmed Chalabi - the same guy who told great stories of Iraqi WMD. He has after the invasion been completely discredited as a source. The only other person who has confirmed the validity of the documents is an Iraqi ex-official in US custody, that is currently being charged with war crimes.

The second strong point is that they havn't found any form of evidence of any money being transferred. The British did an investigation, checking all transactions and they could find no hint of any impropriety.

The third thing is that the Senate committee has conveniently chosen to highlight a pair of people that are mentioned in the documents obtained. On that list were some 50 people, and among them for instance pope John Paul II.

So bottom line, it was not too tough for him to mount a defence. The documents in question have already been declared as forgeries and there is no evidence of any money being transferred..

[denoir 0]

Watch what happens when Galloway goes under pressure and is interviewed by someone who dis-agrees with him, the great Jeremy Paxman.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/blog/4519553.stm

Yeah, I saw that. This is the first thins he says to Galloway:

Quote[/b] ]JP: We're joined now from his count in Bethnal Green and Bow by George Galloway. Mr Galloway, are you proud of having got rid of one of the very few black women in Parliament?

Is Paxman supposed to be a reporter? As far as I can see, it's a blatant personal attack on Galloway and not a fair interview. Doesn't the BBC have a policy of political neutrality?

[Acecombat 0]

Why do you hate him , what has he said thats so bad that you wanna kill him?

I said NOT physically. Thats it mate, read it one more time just for understanding puposes, got it now?

Ok he goes and tell all Brtish soldiers to dis-obey all their orders and not fight.

Then he goes and tells the Iraqi's, try and kill as many British soldiers as possible.

Basically, he's a traitor.

Your sources for that or is it just one of those sayings which gets exchanged from many mouths and ultimately ends up being something totally different then what he might have said.

The guy also corrected Sen. Coleman about that 'dear' thing he mis quoted , loved it when he said i dont use double adjectives .

I think the guy was pretty fair in his sayings , sounded like a real orator (sp?) champ though. And i dont see how basically not agreeing with a lie (the iraq war) is being traitorous.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Paxman is well known as a combative interviewer, politicians expect him to try and trip them up. I think he asked just the question Galloway would least want asked phrased so as to be difficult to answer, i didnt think it was Paxmans best performance though.

Galloway did well 'against' the senate and the way he appeared to knock the wind out of the first senator made me laugh. Thats just the kind of showy controversial stuff hes best at (The House of Commons is good practice i think). I wouldnt want him as my local MP though.

Did anyone actually argue with the 'i was right on all the major issues with Iraq and you were wrong' part?

[denoir 0]

I think the US Senators were pretty much unaccustomed to that style of response - British parliamentary style is far more confrontational. Furthermore they expected a quasi-legal hearing while they got a political lecture.

Given the by any standards extremely weak case they had, this wasn't all too surprising.

I'm looking forward to reading tomorrow what the conservative US columnists will have to say ( http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ )

[walker 0]

Hi all

Interesting that most of the oil for food oil scam that paid Sadam his kickbacks went not to Russia or France or UN but to the USA.

Quote[/b] ]Of the $228 million in surcharged oil, the Democratic report found the United States imported 525 million barrels, or 52 percent of it. Among the biggest end users of this oil were Valero, Premcor, Alon USA, and Exxon, according to the report.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/17/oil.food/index.html

Exactly as George Galloway said. It seems he was right in all his predictions.

I must apologise to him as I was one of those who said he was wrong before the war. In fact he was 100% correct there was no WMD, no link to Al Qaida and no link to 9/11.

We went to war and killed a 100,000 Iraqi's and nearly 2000 coalition soldiers 1600 of them American then wounded and disabled over 6000; we weekly loose 200 brave Iraqi police and soldiers and all over what? As Galloway said over a pack of lies.

Sadly walker

[Bordoy 0]

Watch what happens when Galloway goes under pressure and is interviewed by someone who dis-agrees with him, the great Jeremy Paxman.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/blog/4519553.stm

Yeah, I saw that. This is the first thins he says to Galloway:

Quote[/b] ]JP: We're joined now from his count in Bethnal Green and Bow by George Galloway. Mr Galloway, are you proud of having got rid of one of the very few black women in Parliament?

Is Paxman supposed to be a reporter? As far as I can see, it's a blatant personal attack on Galloway and not a fair interview. Doesn't the BBC have a policy of political neutrality?

Yer but notice how Galloway never answers the question. Paxman does his job correctly, doesn't matter if he's talking to Galloway, Blair, Howard, Griffin. He always has the same interview technique. Which is fair.

It happened on Sky News yesterday when he was being interviewed from washington by the guy i the studio.

The presenter said something along the lines of "Did you, or did you not gain money out of this?

And Galloway doesn't answer the question and replies with something like "I think you must ask yourself the question....."

[theavonlady 2]

Yer but notice how Galloway never answers the question. Paxman does his job correctly, doesn't matter if he's talking to Galloway, Blair, Howard, Griffin. He always has the same interview technique. Which is fair.

It happened on Sky News yesterday when he was being interviewed from washington by the guy i the studio.

The presenter said something along the lines of "Did you, or did you not gain money out of this?

And Galloway doesn't answer the question and replies with something like "I think you must ask yourself the question....."

Which is pretty much what The Scotsman says:

Quote[/b] ]Galloway bluster fails to convince Senate

GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN

CHIEF NEWS CORRESPONDENT

Key points

• Galloway's testimony against accusations leaves US Senate bewildered

• Respect MP used meeting as platform for vocal criticism of Iraq war

• US Senate remains to unsure of Galloway's credibility and approach

Key quote

"I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is that Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns." - GEORGE GALLOWAY

Story in full

GEORGE Galloway yesterday failed in his attempt to convince a sceptical US Senate investigative committee that he had not profited from oil dealings with Iraq under the UN’s controversial oil-for-food programme.

Despite a typically barnstorming performance full of bluster and rhetorical flourishes, the former Glasgow Kelvin MP was pinned down by persistent questioning over his business relationship with Fawaz Zureikat, the chairman of the Mariam Appeal - set up to assist a four-year-old Iraqi girl suffering from leukaemia.

And it was a Democrat senator, Carl Levin, rather than the Republican committee chairman, Norm Coleman, who gave him the hardest time as Mr Galloway sought to turn the tables on his inquisitors, leaving him no closer to clearing his name than when he took his seat in front of the sub-committee of the Senate’s homeland security and government affairs committee in Washington.

Time and again, Mr Levin questioned him, requesting wearily that he deliver a straight answer to a straight question. But Mr Galloway could, or would not.

The Respect MP clearly thought he came out on top, and said so bluntly afterwards, describing the chairman as "not much of a lyncher".

But Mr Coleman, accused by the MP of being "remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice", appeared unswayed by Mr Galloway’s testimony. "If in fact he lied to this committee, there will have to be consequences," he said afterwards.

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

The committee’s report on Mr Galloway’s alleged involvement, published to coincide with yesterday’s hearing, pulled few punches. Despite the MP’s denials, it said, the evidence showed that: "Iraq granted George Galloway allocations for millions of barrels of oil under the oil-for-food programme.

"Moreover, some evidence indicates that Galloway appeared to use a charity for children’s leukaemia to conceal payments associated with at least one such allocation. Lastly, according to senior Saddam officials, the oil allocations were granted by Iraq because of Galloway’s support for the Saddam regime and his opposition to UN sanctions."

Mr Galloway, the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, had pledged to take the fight to the committee and did not disappoint. Sitting up straight, he stared ahead as he delivered an impassioned diatribe against the US approach to Iraq.

"I am not now, nor have I ever been an oil trader and neither has anyone on my behalf," he told the chairman. "I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and American governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas."

In a lengthy opening statement, Mr Galloway insisted the sub-committee had no evidence against him.

"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 Iraq."

And Mr Galloway rejected a claim in the sub-committee’s report that he had had "many" meetings with Saddam Hussein, saying he had only met the former dictator twice.

"I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is that Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns," he said.

It was the speech of a man believing himself wronged: "I gave my heart and soul to stop you from committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq," he said. "And I told the world that the case for war was a pack of lies."

And he poured scorn on the documentation produced in evidence against him, insisting, on his oath, that he had never heard of the company which, it was suggested, acted as a conduit for oil deals on his behalf.

He accused the sub-committee of committing a "schoolboy howler" in its presentation of the evidence.

Under repeated questioning, Mr Galloway conceded that Mr Zureikat did have extensive business dealings with the Saddam regime but, challenged over whether his friend’s generous contributions to the Mariam Appeal - Å900,000 by his own previous assessments - could have come from the sale of oil, he stonewalled.

Urged to say if he would repay the cash if it could be proved to have come from such a source, he again ducked the question. Mr Galloway first met Mr Zureikat, a Jordanian businessman, through his now-estranged wife Amineh Abu-Zayyad, who had attended the same university in Jordan. The men became friends and set up the Mariam Appeal in 1998.

• BBC Scotland flew its own reporter, Bob Wylie, out to cover Mr Galloway’s appearance, while the corporation is looking to make job cuts and savings.

Gotta love that ending paragraph!

Personally, I fail to see at this point anything dramatic in either direction in this issue.

[denoir 0]

What Galloway refused to answer was the question if he would be bothered if it turned out that one of the main contributors to his campaign to save an Iraqi girl with leukemia had paid bribes to the Iraqi government to get oil deals.

Galloway responded that there were far more serious things to be bothered about (sanctions, war etc) and that he really didn't care where the money that was donated to the charity came from.

The Senator pointed out several times, that paying such bribes was a violation of the UN Oil-for-Food program, and asked Galloway if he wasn't bothered that a contributor to his charity organization was breaking the law.

Saying that he was "pinned down" is plain silly. It was one question, that was irrelevant to begin with.

Watch the recording of the event for yourself rather than take the word of "the Scotsman" which loathes Galloway.

[walker 0]

Hi all

People can judge for themselves by seeng the full testimony on video.

Unfortunately the US Senate commitee so far seems to have lost its recording of Galloway's testimony even the the pdf of written record is missing from the senate commitee's minutes. I wonder how?

Lukily the full testimony on video is available from the BBC on this page as the link: "Galloway's testimony."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4556113.stm

Like many others I have recorded it just in case. Perhaps people can send the Senate commitee a link to the copy; so the Senate commitee has a copy of the Galloway testimony, it some how lost.

Kind Regards Walker

[Acecombat 0]

I agree with denoir , and i think thats the point at which senate has realized that its lost the case. They couldnt prove he did anything wrong through hard evidence so all they could do was mull around the one question to which Galloway wasnt bothering to answer , and rightly so who the hell is the senate to ask personal questions of what he feels and doesnt feels. Talk about being such hypocrite ba*tards , galloway could ask the senate plenty of things over what the feel is right or wrong and how come if its so wrong they went through with some of their decisions , but obviously he cannot as it seems the senate cant be put to question but they can put to question anyone they want , some fairness .

[chops 111]

• BBC Scotland flew its own reporter, Bob Wylie, out to cover Mr Galloway’s appearance, while the corporation is looking to make job cuts and savings.

Gotta love that ending paragraph!

Personally, I fail to see at this point anything dramatic in either direction in this issue.

Yes I love it! Pretty much discredits impartiality on the part of "The Scottsman", I'd be embarrassed to put my name to that.

I agree that there isn't much drama in it for those of us used to more dissent in politics than the US senate provides, busy with it's rubber stamps.

I also agree that it's ridiculous for the Senate to question Galloway's "feelings". There should be an impeachment underway now, not a charracter assassination of those who the US Senate should've listened to all along.

[SpongeBob 0]

Quote[/b] ]Bill Clinton: Iraq Changes Good for Region

By JAN M. OLSEN

Associated Press Writer

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) -- Former President Clinton said Wednesday the political changes in Iraq, including parliamentary elections in January, will help bring stability to the region.

Clinton met with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and a number of Danish lawmakers during his visit. The former president spoke with reporters before flying to Jordan for a poverty conference.

"The Sunnis and the Shiites, the Kurds and all the various tribes can work out accommodations that will allow them to build a stable society, I think that will be good for Iraq and good for the Middle East," Clinton said at the end of a two-day visit to Denmark.

In January, Iraq held the its first democratic parliamentary elections to choose a 275-member National Assembly and provincial legislatures.

"There is no point living in the past," Clinton said. "Look at where we are now. Everyone, all freedom-loving people would be better off with a genuinely representative, effective, free government in Iraq whatever your feelings are about what went on before."

[Bordoy 0]

Has Galloway explained how all that money appeared in the children's charity he runs?

[Bordoy 0]

Would of liked to seen the Senate ask these.

1. Was the amount of around Å300,000 Galloway says was donated by Fawaz Zureikat to the Mariam Appeal a personal donation or was it rather revenue from a voucher deal related to the Oil for Food programme?

2. Why were the accounts and other documents of the Mariam Appeal moved out of the UK to the Middle East?

3. Where is the documentation now?

4. Will Galloway make that documentation avaliable as he promised to do so two years ago?

5. Why did Galloway make oil for food dealer Fawaz Zureikat chairman of the Mariam Appeal and why did he sign a letter designating him his representative in Iraq?

6. How was the Å900,000 the Mariam Appeal raised in donations actually spent? Can Galloway show documented proof of where the money went?

[denoir 0]

Ehh.. Those questions were already answered by a British inquiry into the Mariam Appeal led by Lord Goldsmith. They  verified all transactions and found no improprieties.

Anyway, while there may be some interesting questions to ask, in a civilized system, when charged with a crime the burden of proof is on the side of the accuser. They have not provided any evidence of wrong doing on Galloway's part.

Until they do, there's no reason to suspect Galloway of anything.

[Bordoy 0]

Ehh.. Those questions were already answered by a British inquiry into the Mariam Appeal led by Lord Goldsmith. They  verified all transactions and found no improprieties.

Anyway, while there may be some interesting questions to ask, in a civilized system, when charged with a crime the burden of proof is on the side of the accuser. They have not provided any evidence of wrong doing on Galloway's part.

Until they do, there's no reason to suspect Galloway of anything.

To suspect, yes we can. But to accuse, then no.

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Is Paxman supposed to be a reporter? As far as I can see, it's a blatant personal attack on Galloway and not a fair interview. Doesn't the BBC have a policy of political neutrality?

As you'll see below, Tony Banks raised that issue only a minute before the interview and so the question was not out of nowhere.

BBC Stand by Galloway Interview

Quote[/b] ]BBC stands by Galloway interview

The BBC is standing by Jeremy Paxman's election night interview with George Galloway despite receiving over 100 complaints that it was too aggressive.

The presenter asked the Respect MP, who won Bethnal Green and Bow from Oona King, if he was proud of ousting one of the few black women from Parliament.

Mr Galloway said the question was "preposterous" and soon walked out.

The BBC said Mr Paxman was justified in asking the question because a studio guest had just raised the issue.

'Pertinent'

The guest was former Labour MP Tony Banks.

BBC Head of Political Programmes Sue Inglish said: "Some people found Jeremy Paxman's line of questioning insensitive but, having reviewed the interview in the cold light of day, I do not agree.

"It was Mr Banks who brought up questions of ethnicity and gender.

"When Jeremy Paxman very shortly afterwards had a chance to interview George Galloway, the question he asked was one that many in the audience must at that point have had at the front of their minds: did Mr Galloway feel uncomfortable about unseating one of the few black women MPs?"

Ms Inglish said it was a "pertinent" question to ask and added that the Newsnight presenter was renowned for his "vigorous questioning" and so his directness would not have come as a surprise.

It was Mr Galloway who chose not to take the opportunity to respond, she said.

The former Labour MP instead challenged the Newsnight presenter to congratulate him on his victory.

[Gadger 0]

So what if Galloway took money from Iraq/Saddam, how much money did the UK give to Saddam/Iraq during the mid 1980's? Almost the GDP of a small nation is what.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Quick reminder Galloway took no money from Sadam otherwise the senate committee would have had the evidence at the hearing.

The Miriam appeal charity of which George Galloway was the founder received money mainly from the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Royal Families but it also had donated 300,000 UK pounds from Zuricat who was the charities Chairman. As Galloway in his testimony pointed out Zuricat was a big business man in Iraq and the Miriam Appeal used him as their designated representative in Iraq.

During the sanctions period 1 million Iraqis, mostly children died from starvation and lack of medical facilities. As the Charity was to help children with cancer and other serious diseases in Iraq, it had to have an Iraqi representative and a business man with connections to Iraqi business and who new the country and its bureaucracy was an obvious choice.

The UK Charity commission traced every single penny that went in and out of the Miriam appeal they found no Impropriety. It also found that the accusation by the senate committee that Miriam appeal received money from Aradio oil was not true.

All this is not surprising as a lot of the evidence the senate committee's was quoting was found by the Christian Science monitor to be forged and in fact is physically imposable as it reports from an era when the oil for food program did not even exist Hence why Coleman who is supposed to be lawyer sounded so embarrassed and defensive.

The most of the rest of the evidence was provided by Ahmed Chalibi the man the US wanted to arrest but who is now head of Iraqi Oil and who is a convicted bank robber and fraudster and who the US accuses of being an Iranian spy. With that Coleman really sounded embarrassed

Like I said all this is available in the testimony by George Galloway that the Senate commitee some how does not seem to be able to place on the senate record

never mind it is all here curtesy of the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4556113.stm

Kind Regards Walker

[miles teg 1]

Do'h! That is funny that the Senate doesn't want to put his testimony on record. lol!

Chalabi...ah the same weasel that provided about 80% of the "evidence" used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

That guy is as sleazy and corrupt as they come. I don't know why the US or the current Iraqi government continues to tolerate that dirt bag.

I thought it was funny how the US Army beat the shit out of his militia when he first came to Iraq with his thugs and tried to create his own headquarters in Baghdad muscling his way into a neighborhood. I think his brother was accused of murder also... but I'm not sure what happened to those charges.

At any rate, it sounds to me like they don't have crap on Galloway and that the hearing was intended to divert attention away from US companies who were involved in the scandal.

I'm surprised they haven't called Kofi Anan or his son to come testify before the Senate. The Bush Administration hates Kofi.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Galloway is a scumbag and is the lowest of the low. Although i don't think he willingly accepted money for the charity directly from saddam and the OFF program, but i wouldn't be suprised that he had inclings that certain donations from certain people where of lets say dodgy sources.

[miles teg 1]

Galloway is a scumbag and is the lowest of the low. Although i don't think he willingly accepted money for the charity directly from saddam and the OFF program, but i wouldn't be suprised that he had inclings that certain donations from certain people where of lets say dodgy sources.

But if there is no evidence of such, then why is he a scumbag?

Charities are very very tricky businesses when it comes to checking to see where sources of donations come from. Its very expensive to track down sources and most charities do not waste time and resources doing that unless it is required of them legally to verify the sources of donations rather then just keep records of it.

So yes he did make some stupid statements concerning the resistance in Iraq and stuff about occupation forces burning in hell, but aside from that why is he a scumbag?  Was not what he said in the Senate hearings the truth?   It seemed to have rattled some cages in the Senate.

At least he wasn't a MASSIVE con-artist like Chalabi who helped get us into this mess in Iraq. I'll take 100 Galloways over a Chalabi any day.

Of coarse if you are a 110% Bush backer then I guess Chalabi is a hero of freedom and democracy as he was one of the key elements in getting that wonderfully accurate WMD/Al-Qaeda-Saddam connection intel data that the Bush admin. used to justify our invasion of Iraq.

But hey, the ends justify the means right? That's what Al-Zarqowi (the Al-Qaeda leader in Iraq) would say.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Galloway is a scumbag and is the lowest of the low. Although i don't think he willingly accepted money for the charity directly from saddam and the OFF program, but i wouldn't be suprised that he had inclings that certain donations from certain people where of lets say dodgy sources.

But if there is no evidence of such, then why is he a scumbag?

Charities are very very tricky businesses when it comes to checking to see where sources of donations come from. Its very expensive to track down sources and most charities do not waste time and resources doing that unless it is required of them legally to verify the sources of donations rather then just keep records of it.

So yes he did make some stupid statements concerning the resistance in Iraq and stuff about occupation forces burning in hell, but aside from that why is he a scumbag? Was not what he said in the Senate hearings the truth? It seemed to have rattled some cages in the Senate.

At least he wasn't a MASSIVE con-artist like Chalabi who helped get us into this mess in Iraq. I'll take 100 Galloways over a Chalabi any day.

Of coarse if you are a 110% Bush backer then I guess Chalabi is a hero of freedom and democracy as he was one of the key elements in getting that wonderfully accurate WMD/Al-Qaeda-Saddam connection intel data that the Bush admin. used to justify our invasion of Iraq.

But hey, the ends justify the means right? That's what Al-Zarqowi (the Al-Qaeda leader in Iraq) would say.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Galloway is a scumbag in my opinion on how he conducts politics at home, He was best mates and best man with the top man who was giving the large donations and he knew he was dealing with Saddam but claims he never questioned where that money came from, my opinion that hes a scumbag has nothing to do the Mariam appeal but his general conduct at home. If you knew a little about George than you would take neither.