Full Version: Galloway Strikes Back!
I usually try to avoid starting debates unless I am convinced of the substantive policy implications rather than their popular appeal... but this I can't resist.
Galloway angrily denies oil claim
Galloway defends himself before US committee
Here's a transcript of Galloway's speech, and a video which I think encapsulates most of it. (I can't really tell over 56K
)
Galloway v the US Senate: transcript of statement
Video Link
So...
Is Galloway's defense on the "Oil-for-Food" allegations a solid one?
Do the Senators have a case against him?
Is the "Oil-for-Food" inquiry by the Senate being well pursued, in general?
Do you think Galloway's views are widely held in allied governments?
If so, what do you think are the implications?
QUOTE
Mr Galloway went on the offensive as soon as he began to speak, saying he had met Saddam Hussein on two occasions - the same number of times as US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
"The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and maps - the better to target those guns. I met him to try to bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war," he said.
"The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and maps - the better to target those guns. I met him to try to bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war," he said.
Galloway angrily denies oil claim
QUOTE
A defiant Mr Galloway appeared at the hearing - entitled "Oil for Influence: How Saddam Used Oil to Reward Politicians and Terrorist Entities under the United Nations Oil for Food Programme" - at the invitation of Senator Norm Coleman.
Senator Coleman had claimed the Respect Party MP for Bethnal Green and Bow had received allocations for up to 20 million barrels between 2000 to 2003. He began the hearing by reading a list of documents which, he said, showed that Mr Galloway had received allocations of oil under the former oil-for-food programme.
Senator Coleman had claimed the Respect Party MP for Bethnal Green and Bow had received allocations for up to 20 million barrels between 2000 to 2003. He began the hearing by reading a list of documents which, he said, showed that Mr Galloway had received allocations of oil under the former oil-for-food programme.
Galloway defends himself before US committee
Here's a transcript of Galloway's speech, and a video which I think encapsulates most of it. (I can't really tell over 56K
) Galloway v the US Senate: transcript of statement
Video Link
So...
Is Galloway's defense on the "Oil-for-Food" allegations a solid one?
Do the Senators have a case against him?
Is the "Oil-for-Food" inquiry by the Senate being well pursued, in general?
Do you think Galloway's views are widely held in allied governments?
If so, what do you think are the implications?
Is Galloway's defense on the "Oil-for-Food" allegations a solid one?
Yes, pretty much.
He has already defended himself successfully against press accusations in the UK along much the same lines - that he was being paid by the Saddam regime to cheerlead for it. BBC News Story
He has been an outspoken MP on Iraq - unlike most backbenchers, he's always had an opinion, and has been about the noisiest as a critic of the West in General and Tony Blair in particular - he left the Labour party and set up his own party, Respect, as a result, with much popular support among British Muslims.
His new parliamentary seat, Tower Hamlets, has one of the largest Muslim populations of any UK constituency, and had the disadvantage of having a sitting MP, Oona King, who was female, Jewish, and pubcly supported the Iraq War, none of which particularly endeared her to her constituents. Though feminity and Judaism are clearly not the deal-breakers here, since she got elected there in the first place. (Mostly for nighttimer, here's a link to a photo of her. Given our shared taste in female looks, I'd say you'd enjoy it!
Oona King)
In strict terms, he hasn't even been that much of a cheerleader for Saddam - his famous speech to him in Iraq (link), was more down to his natural grandiloquence, and his support for Palestine and hostility to what he saw as Western Imperialism (at least that's what I think it was). Plus, he said it in 1994. Plus, telling Saddam something when face-to-face, and really believing it, or telling it to the rest of the world as well, are two different things. I doubt if Donald Rumsfeld was anything less than polite geniality when he met Saddam.
Do the Senator's have a case against him?
In light of the above, I'd say no, they don't. He hasn't taken cash for oil. He may have a big mouth, and he may have let some foolish things come out of it, but he hasn't done anything untoward with regard to Iraqi sanctions.
If anyone on the Senate inquiry had done their homework - like, maybe, just as a wild example, looked on the Internet for the reports of his libel action against the Daily Telegraph like I did above, and perhaps looked at some of his speeches and TV appearances over here - they would have realised that putting him on a platform at the Senate wouldresult in them looking a bit stupid, and not in George doing so.
Is the "Oil-for-Food" inquiry by the Senate being well pursued, in general?
Er, no, not really. This article suggests that maybe chasing after foreigners and UN officials for their alleged sanctions-busting (much of which may or may not be proven) may be, let us say charitably, misdirection, since there appears to be at least as much evidence against upstanding US citizens and corporations who were happy to pay Saddam's kickbacks in return for cheap oil as there is against any of the people this committee is going after, and on a much larger scale. Or has done so far - they may be saving the best for last. Somehow I doubt it, though.
Do you think Galloway's views are widely held in allied governments?
Hard to say. Certainly in British politics George Galloway is something of a maverick. He is, or rather was, on the extreme left wing of the Labour party here, so much so that he has always (as fringe politicians often are here) been seen by himself and his supporters as a man of cast-iron convictions and great integrity, and by everyone else as a bit of a joke.
**aside** That said, in the recent UK General Election, I downloaded all the published manifestos (thanks to links on the BBC's website), and I have to admit, however grudgingly, that Galloway's Respect party came very close indeed to being my own personal wish list. **aside ends**
In this respect (pun intended), the US Senate has probably improved Galloway's political profile back home still further among people who have their doubts about the Iraq War and surrounding issues.
I suspect, however, that Galloway's views are shared rather more closely in the governments of countries that were less keen on the Iraq War in the first place.
If so, what do you think are the implications?
I would say that the implications are likely to be continued embarrassing TV moments like this one, if the committee keeps calling people who are not involved in anything suspicious and can string together more than a few sentences. Also that, if they want to go after people like Kofi Annan, as seems likely, they had better be ready for broadly-based international opposition, criticism, and further lowered opinions on the current Republican administration in all branches of US government among the rest of the wordl.
Unless, of course, they also deal with the allegations of santions-busting and corruption that point right back at US business interests with at least as much zeal as those against anyone at the UN. They should tread carefully, as this threatens to blow up in their faces if they don't.
Yes, pretty much.
He has already defended himself successfully against press accusations in the UK along much the same lines - that he was being paid by the Saddam regime to cheerlead for it. BBC News Story
He has been an outspoken MP on Iraq - unlike most backbenchers, he's always had an opinion, and has been about the noisiest as a critic of the West in General and Tony Blair in particular - he left the Labour party and set up his own party, Respect, as a result, with much popular support among British Muslims.
His new parliamentary seat, Tower Hamlets, has one of the largest Muslim populations of any UK constituency, and had the disadvantage of having a sitting MP, Oona King, who was female, Jewish, and pubcly supported the Iraq War, none of which particularly endeared her to her constituents. Though feminity and Judaism are clearly not the deal-breakers here, since she got elected there in the first place. (Mostly for nighttimer, here's a link to a photo of her. Given our shared taste in female looks, I'd say you'd enjoy it!
Oona King)In strict terms, he hasn't even been that much of a cheerleader for Saddam - his famous speech to him in Iraq (link), was more down to his natural grandiloquence, and his support for Palestine and hostility to what he saw as Western Imperialism (at least that's what I think it was). Plus, he said it in 1994. Plus, telling Saddam something when face-to-face, and really believing it, or telling it to the rest of the world as well, are two different things. I doubt if Donald Rumsfeld was anything less than polite geniality when he met Saddam.
Do the Senator's have a case against him?
In light of the above, I'd say no, they don't. He hasn't taken cash for oil. He may have a big mouth, and he may have let some foolish things come out of it, but he hasn't done anything untoward with regard to Iraqi sanctions.
If anyone on the Senate inquiry had done their homework - like, maybe, just as a wild example, looked on the Internet for the reports of his libel action against the Daily Telegraph like I did above, and perhaps looked at some of his speeches and TV appearances over here - they would have realised that putting him on a platform at the Senate wouldresult in them looking a bit stupid, and not in George doing so.
Is the "Oil-for-Food" inquiry by the Senate being well pursued, in general?
Er, no, not really. This article suggests that maybe chasing after foreigners and UN officials for their alleged sanctions-busting (much of which may or may not be proven) may be, let us say charitably, misdirection, since there appears to be at least as much evidence against upstanding US citizens and corporations who were happy to pay Saddam's kickbacks in return for cheap oil as there is against any of the people this committee is going after, and on a much larger scale. Or has done so far - they may be saving the best for last. Somehow I doubt it, though.
Do you think Galloway's views are widely held in allied governments?
Hard to say. Certainly in British politics George Galloway is something of a maverick. He is, or rather was, on the extreme left wing of the Labour party here, so much so that he has always (as fringe politicians often are here) been seen by himself and his supporters as a man of cast-iron convictions and great integrity, and by everyone else as a bit of a joke.
**aside** That said, in the recent UK General Election, I downloaded all the published manifestos (thanks to links on the BBC's website), and I have to admit, however grudgingly, that Galloway's Respect party came very close indeed to being my own personal wish list. **aside ends**
In this respect (pun intended), the US Senate has probably improved Galloway's political profile back home still further among people who have their doubts about the Iraq War and surrounding issues.
I suspect, however, that Galloway's views are shared rather more closely in the governments of countries that were less keen on the Iraq War in the first place.
If so, what do you think are the implications?
I would say that the implications are likely to be continued embarrassing TV moments like this one, if the committee keeps calling people who are not involved in anything suspicious and can string together more than a few sentences. Also that, if they want to go after people like Kofi Annan, as seems likely, they had better be ready for broadly-based international opposition, criticism, and further lowered opinions on the current Republican administration in all branches of US government among the rest of the wordl.
Unless, of course, they also deal with the allegations of santions-busting and corruption that point right back at US business interests with at least as much zeal as those against anyone at the UN. They should tread carefully, as this threatens to blow up in their faces if they don't.
Is Galloway's defense on the "Oil-for-Food" allegations a solid one?
Absolutely. There is no evidence against him - unless you count forged documents and "testimony" by people who are either facing war crimes charges or are seeking political advantage.
Do the Senator's have a case against him?
None whatsoever. Oh, wait - they do have testimony from such reliable characters as the Bush administration's good friend, Ahmed Chalabi.
Is the "Oil-for-Food" inquiry by the Senate being well pursued, in general?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Uh, no. As Galloway himself said the whole thing is a smokescreen to conceal the crimes of US oil companies and the US government itself. It is a case of the pot calling the porcelain sink black.
Just about everyone that the Senate Investigations Committee is targeting is Russian, French, or British - and the British targets are only those who opposed Blair's support of America's illegal war of aggression. And the "evidence" seems to be consistently flimsy - at best. Those against whom there may be solid evidence are being ignored - at least, so far. This whole thing is like having the Nuremberg trials run by the Wehrmacht.
Do you think Galloway's views are widely held in allied governments? If so, what do you think are the implications?
I rather suspect they are. After all, Galloway's "views" are based on fact. And most governments, allied or not, are a bit more reality-based than the Bush administration.
I do not, however, see there being any major implications. Galloway is saying nothing new - he's just repeating what the rest of the world already knows: the invasion of Iraq was based on a pack of lies and the Senate Investigations Committee is a partisan machine being used to defame anyone who didn't support the Bush administration in their aggressive war campaign. I doubt that Galloway's reiteration of the facts can bring any more disgrace on this country than our leadership has already brought.
What could have further implications are the stories arising from these hearings - like the fact that the Democratic Staff Report on the UN Oil for Food Program has revealed that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil. And that the US government "was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions" and that "on occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales". But, as we have a one-party government - and it is the guilty party - I don't expect that the implications will be earth-shattering. The Republican Party will continue to ignore the facts, the complicit media will fail to cover the facts, and together they will use lies to continue to demonize the opposition.
Absolutely. There is no evidence against him - unless you count forged documents and "testimony" by people who are either facing war crimes charges or are seeking political advantage.
Do the Senator's have a case against him?
None whatsoever. Oh, wait - they do have testimony from such reliable characters as the Bush administration's good friend, Ahmed Chalabi.
Is the "Oil-for-Food" inquiry by the Senate being well pursued, in general?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Uh, no. As Galloway himself said the whole thing is a smokescreen to conceal the crimes of US oil companies and the US government itself. It is a case of the pot calling the porcelain sink black.
Just about everyone that the Senate Investigations Committee is targeting is Russian, French, or British - and the British targets are only those who opposed Blair's support of America's illegal war of aggression. And the "evidence" seems to be consistently flimsy - at best. Those against whom there may be solid evidence are being ignored - at least, so far. This whole thing is like having the Nuremberg trials run by the Wehrmacht.
Do you think Galloway's views are widely held in allied governments? If so, what do you think are the implications?
I rather suspect they are. After all, Galloway's "views" are based on fact. And most governments, allied or not, are a bit more reality-based than the Bush administration.
I do not, however, see there being any major implications. Galloway is saying nothing new - he's just repeating what the rest of the world already knows: the invasion of Iraq was based on a pack of lies and the Senate Investigations Committee is a partisan machine being used to defame anyone who didn't support the Bush administration in their aggressive war campaign. I doubt that Galloway's reiteration of the facts can bring any more disgrace on this country than our leadership has already brought.
What could have further implications are the stories arising from these hearings - like the fact that the Democratic Staff Report on the UN Oil for Food Program has revealed that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil. And that the US government "was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions" and that "on occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales". But, as we have a one-party government - and it is the guilty party - I don't expect that the implications will be earth-shattering. The Republican Party will continue to ignore the facts, the complicit media will fail to cover the facts, and together they will use lies to continue to demonize the opposition.
Is Galloway's defense on the "Oil-for-Food" allegations a solid one?
Absolutely. He flatly denied every aspect of every allegation against him, and demonstrated that in every matter of substance, the evidence against him was garbage.
Do the Senator's have a case against him?
None whatsoever, and I think that Galloway's testimony made them look like fools.
Is the "Oil-for-Food" inquiry by the Senate being well pursued, in general?
They could regain some credibility if they went after some of the American indirect participants. Right now it looks like a lynch mob hunting for "furriners".[/b]
Do you think Galloway's views are widely held in allied governments? If so, what do you think are the implications?
Yes, I think they are widely held, except for the British government and the Italian government. And in both those countries, the population disagrees with their government.
Absolutely. He flatly denied every aspect of every allegation against him, and demonstrated that in every matter of substance, the evidence against him was garbage.
Do the Senator's have a case against him?
None whatsoever, and I think that Galloway's testimony made them look like fools.
Is the "Oil-for-Food" inquiry by the Senate being well pursued, in general?
They could regain some credibility if they went after some of the American indirect participants. Right now it looks like a lynch mob hunting for "furriners".[/b]
Do you think Galloway's views are widely held in allied governments? If so, what do you think are the implications?
Yes, I think they are widely held, except for the British government and the Italian government. And in both those countries, the population disagrees with their government.
QUOTE(Wertz @ May 18 2005, 11:08 AM)
What could have further implications are the stories arising from these hearings - like the fact that the Democratic Staff Report on the UN Oil for Food Program has revealed that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil. And that the US government "was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions" and that "on occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales". But, as we have a one-party government - and it is the guilty party - I don't expect that the implications will be earth-shattering. The Republican Party will continue to ignore the facts, the complicit media will fail to cover the facts, and together they will use lies to continue to demonize the opposition.
Wertz didn't mention the following paragraph from the Guardian but I want to nip it in the butt before misunderstandings pick up traction.
QUOTE
In its second main finding, the report said the US military and the state department gave a tacit green light for shipments of nearly 8m barrels of oil bought by Jordan, a vital American ally, entirely outside the UN-monitored Oil For Food system. Jordan was permitted to buy some oil directly under strict conditions but these purchases appeared to be under the counter.
Mrs. P disproved this specific allegation here: Halliburton Working in Iran Despite Sanctions
The surcharges and kickbacks from US companies may be true and the Senate has a poor case on their hands if they have to quote Chalabi, who should be dragged to the hearings himself, but the committee won't play with that embarrassing firebomb.
QUOTE(Wertz @ May 18 2005, 10:08 AM)
What could have further implications are the stories arising from these hearings - like the fact that the Democratic Staff Report on the UN Oil for Food Program has revealed that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil. And that the US government "was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions" and that "on occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales". But, as we have a one-party government - and it is the guilty party - I don't expect that the implications will be earth-shattering. The Republican Party will continue to ignore the facts, the complicit media will fail to cover the facts, and together they will use lies to continue to demonize the opposition.
Wouldn't those purchases have been made under the Clinton administration? Wouldn't this then refute all of the above?
QUOTE(Julian)
In this respect (pun intended), the US Senate has probably improved Galloway's political profile back home still further among people who have their doubts about the Iraq War and surrounding issues.
I have to say that from my perspective, Galloway has gotten a lot of clout for this.
Until today I also looked upon him as a bit of a crack pot. I won't in future. I wish more of our European politicians had the courage of their convictions to face the US military/government and tell them a few truths to their faces. Its about time some one did.
I don't know whether or not it will make any difference here in Denmark where official support for the USA is practically unconditional, but I doubt the opposition MP's will fail to note it and maybe they'll take note. One can hope.
The general Danish population doesn't seem to have noticed this though. Summer is here and everyone is more interested in the wahts on in the cinema.
Well done Galloway! It was too little too late, but it was well said regardless.
Is Galloway's defense on the "Oil-for-Food" allegations a solid one?
He did a superb job of dodging the questions, making accusations against unrelated parties and generally putting up his own smokescreen. This might be a solid defense, it depends on how the Senators react to it.
Mr. Galloway's organization, "Mariam's Appeal" received alot of money (over $600,000 US) from Fawaz Zurayqat, a man who did profit from oil deals with Iraq. Galloway admits this, but asserts that he did not ask where the money came from and that he never hid donations from Zurayqat.
He was clever to say that he never bought, sold or owned oil, but was unapologetic if he received money that came from someone who did.
Galloway has revealed himself somewhat in certain quotes:
Galloway arrives in U.S.
Galloway got into it with Carl Levin (Democratic Senator from Michigan who was against the war) over the source of the funds. Galloway accused Levin of supporting an illegal war, which Levin shot him down on, then quickly switched his statement to say that his colleagues did. Levin, in the end, said that he did not consider Galloway "a credible witness."
Do the Senator's have a case against him?
It is too early to make a determination on the results, but there is certainly a case here. I do think that Galloway may have been treated unfairly, if evidence was "sprung" on him during the hearings. Of course, this is not a criminal proceeding.
Is the "Oil-for-Food" inquiry by the Senate being well pursued, in general?
Galloway is a foreign citizen, as is Charles Pasqua, and thus not really subject to US jurisdiction.
Do you think Galloway's views are widely held in allied governments?
If so, what do you think are the implications?
His anti-US views? I think that has been well documented.
He did a superb job of dodging the questions, making accusations against unrelated parties and generally putting up his own smokescreen. This might be a solid defense, it depends on how the Senators react to it.
Mr. Galloway's organization, "Mariam's Appeal" received alot of money (over $600,000 US) from Fawaz Zurayqat, a man who did profit from oil deals with Iraq. Galloway admits this, but asserts that he did not ask where the money came from and that he never hid donations from Zurayqat.
He was clever to say that he never bought, sold or owned oil, but was unapologetic if he received money that came from someone who did.
Galloway has revealed himself somewhat in certain quotes:
QUOTE(George Galloway)
"I have no expectation of justice from a group of Christian fundamentalist and Zionist activists under the chairmanship of a neocon George Bush."
Galloway arrives in U.S.
Galloway got into it with Carl Levin (Democratic Senator from Michigan who was against the war) over the source of the funds. Galloway accused Levin of supporting an illegal war, which Levin shot him down on, then quickly switched his statement to say that his colleagues did. Levin, in the end, said that he did not consider Galloway "a credible witness."
Do the Senator's have a case against him?
It is too early to make a determination on the results, but there is certainly a case here. I do think that Galloway may have been treated unfairly, if evidence was "sprung" on him during the hearings. Of course, this is not a criminal proceeding.
Is the "Oil-for-Food" inquiry by the Senate being well pursued, in general?
Galloway is a foreign citizen, as is Charles Pasqua, and thus not really subject to US jurisdiction.
Do you think Galloway's views are widely held in allied governments?
If so, what do you think are the implications?
His anti-US views? I think that has been well documented.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ May 18 2005, 12:44 PM)
QUOTE(Wertz @ May 18 2005, 10:08 AM)
What could have further implications are the stories arising from these hearings - like the fact that the Democratic Staff Report on the UN Oil for Food Program has revealed that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil. And that the US government "was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions" and that "on occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales". But, as we have a one-party government - and it is the guilty party - I don't expect that the implications will be earth-shattering. The Republican Party will continue to ignore the facts, the complicit media will fail to cover the facts, and together they will use lies to continue to demonize the opposition.
Wouldn't those purchases have been made under the Clinton administration? Wouldn't this then refute all of the above?
It's hard to tell. The report only refers to purchases made between September 2000 and September 2002 - and the only specific purchases mentioned are Bayoil's shipments in 2001 and 2002 and the Jordanian oil purchases, which were shipped "in the weeks before the war". Further, the report cited evidence that "the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them".
It is possible, of course, that the Clinton administration was also made aware of illegal oil sales prior to this, but no one has presented any evidence to that effect. Maybe the Republican staff of the Senate Investigations Committee should try a real investigation into the sales if they want to make this another Blame Clinton First exercise - but then, their investigations would have to center around companies that sponsor their party and its candidates rather than inventing evidence to implicate foreign nationals who opposed their peerless leader. So we're not likely to see that happening.
QUOTE(Amlord @ May 18 2005, 03:39 PM)
Mr. Galloway's organization, "Mariam's Appeal" received alot of money (over $600,000 US) from Fawaz Zurayqat, a man who did profit from oil deals with Iraq. Galloway admits this, but asserts that he did not ask where the money came from and that he never hid donations from Zurayqat.
He was clever to say that he never bought, sold or owned oil, but was unapologetic if he received money that came from someone who did.
He was clever to say that he never bought, sold or owned oil, but was unapologetic if he received money that came from someone who did.
In the 2004 election cycle alone, David Chalmers of Bayoil made over $60,000 in contributions to Republican campaigns and PACs. So we could just as easily say that the RNC would be clever to say that they never bought, sold, or owned illegal oil - and I expect they would be equally unapologetic about receiving money that also came from someone who did. The only difference is that no member of the RNC is ever likely to find themselves testifying before this committee.
QUOTE(Amlord @ May 18 2005, 03:39 PM)
Galloway has revealed himself somewhat in certain quotes:
QUOTE(George Galloway)
"I have no expectation of justice from a group of Christian fundamentalist and Zionist activists under the chairmanship of a neocon George Bush."
"Revealed himself"? Well, he certainly revealed that he has a better grasp on American politics (and justice) than most Americans...
Do the Senator's have a case against him?
Since we obviously must be led to believe an unnamed, unconfirmed source concerning flushing a Koran down a toilet, why can't we believe an unnamed source from Saddams regime and SOMA, in the Senate's "Report on Oil Allocations Granted to Charles Pasqua & George Galloway", who states that the Oil For Food Program was was nicknamed the "Saddam Bribery System"?
I certainly think that it's worth investigating. If we can waste taxpayers time and money on steroid use in baseball, then why not something that's legitimately criminal?
Is the "Oil-for-Food" inquiry by the Senate being well pursued, in general?
Both major players are foreign nationals, as noted by Amlord, so I don't foresee any prosecutions unless Americans are indicted by the Senate for complicity.
Do you think Galloway's views are widely held in allied governments?
Let's see......have we heard any other governments state:
"If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe."Link
"Your excellency, Mr President, I greet you in the name of the many thousands of people in Britain who stood against the tide and opposed the war and aggression against Iraq and continue to oppose the war by economic means, which is aimed to strangle the life out of the great people of Iraq ... I greet you too in the name of the Palestinian people ... I thought the president would appreciate to know that even today, three years after the war, I still meet families who are calling their newborn sons Saddam. Sir, I salute your courage, your strength your indefatigability. And I want you to know that we are with you until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem." (The Times, January 20 1994.)Link
"The people who invaded and destroyed Iraq and have murdered more than a million Iraqi people by sanctions and war will burn in Hell in the hell-fires, and their name in history will be branded as killers and war criminals for all time. Fallujah is a Guernica, Falluaja is a Stalingrad, and Iraq is in flames as a result of the actions of these criminals. Not the resistance, not anybody else but these criminals who invaded and fell like wolves upon the people of Iraq. And by the way, those Arab regimes which helped them to do it will burn in the same hell-fires."Link
None worth noting anyway.
Since we obviously must be led to believe an unnamed, unconfirmed source concerning flushing a Koran down a toilet, why can't we believe an unnamed source from Saddams regime and SOMA, in the Senate's "Report on Oil Allocations Granted to Charles Pasqua & George Galloway", who states that the Oil For Food Program was was nicknamed the "Saddam Bribery System"?
I certainly think that it's worth investigating. If we can waste taxpayers time and money on steroid use in baseball, then why not something that's legitimately criminal?
Is the "Oil-for-Food" inquiry by the Senate being well pursued, in general?
Both major players are foreign nationals, as noted by Amlord, so I don't foresee any prosecutions unless Americans are indicted by the Senate for complicity.
Do you think Galloway's views are widely held in allied governments?
Let's see......have we heard any other governments state:
"If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe."Link
"Your excellency, Mr President, I greet you in the name of the many thousands of people in Britain who stood against the tide and opposed the war and aggression against Iraq and continue to oppose the war by economic means, which is aimed to strangle the life out of the great people of Iraq ... I greet you too in the name of the Palestinian people ... I thought the president would appreciate to know that even today, three years after the war, I still meet families who are calling their newborn sons Saddam. Sir, I salute your courage, your strength your indefatigability. And I want you to know that we are with you until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem." (The Times, January 20 1994.)Link
"The people who invaded and destroyed Iraq and have murdered more than a million Iraqi people by sanctions and war will burn in Hell in the hell-fires, and their name in history will be branded as killers and war criminals for all time. Fallujah is a Guernica, Falluaja is a Stalingrad, and Iraq is in flames as a result of the actions of these criminals. Not the resistance, not anybody else but these criminals who invaded and fell like wolves upon the people of Iraq. And by the way, those Arab regimes which helped them to do it will burn in the same hell-fires."Link
None worth noting anyway.
Ah...good point Wertz.
But did I mention (or did you know) that Fawaz Zurayqat (or Zureikat, depending on the source) founded Mariam's Appeal with Galloway? Or that Galloway was best man at his wedding?
Galloway knew exactly what kind of funds he was receiving. He would not even deny that he knew where the funds came from.
Galloway assault on Capitol Hill
This wasn't some anonymous source of funds. The Iraqi documents noted that Galloway would receive funds through an intermediary. How convenient that he had intimate ties to a man who had "intimate" ties with Saddam's regime. How convenient that this man just happened to drop $600,000 US into the company that Galloway ran.
I will admit that the evidence is circumstantial at this point. However, it is very fishy and Galloway's evasiveness make me suspicious. Did he really answer the charges? He made plenty of accusations himself. He would have made you proud, Wertz, with his (irrelevant) charges of illegal American wars and improper behavior by others.
His performance rang of a well-rehearsed scene from a movie. He seemed to have decided that going on the offensive would deflect charges from him.
Bay Oil will have their day in court (according to the Senators). Oh wait, Chalmers has already been indicted.
So the charges that the US government will look the other way with US companies is bunk.
But did I mention (or did you know) that Fawaz Zurayqat (or Zureikat, depending on the source) founded Mariam's Appeal with Galloway? Or that Galloway was best man at his wedding?
Galloway knew exactly what kind of funds he was receiving. He would not even deny that he knew where the funds came from.
Galloway assault on Capitol Hill
QUOTE
The MP's most difficult moments came at the hands of Sen Levin. He repeatedly asked whether Mr Galloway would be troubled if it emerged that his friend, the Jordanian oil trader Fawaz Zureikat, had paid illegal surcharges to Saddam.
Mr Zureikat was a chairman of the Mariam Appeal, founded by Mr Galloway to help a four-year-old Iraqi girl, Mariam Hamza, who suffered from leukaemia. It later became known that Mr Zureikat, who had close ties to the Iraqi regime, had also funded the Mariam Appeal.
Mr Galloway at first refused to say that he was troubled by his friend's alleged illegal actions. Instead he chose to emphasise the suffering of Iraqi children under UN sanctions.
That brought a swift rebuke from Sen Levin, a former civil rights lawyer.
Would he be troubled by that? the professorial senator asked again. "That is a very simple question."
When Mr Galloway appeared to evade the issue again, Sen Levin interrupted. To laughter, he said: "I know other things trouble you but can you just give us a straightforward answer?
"You give us a long explanation of other things that trouble you, which is your right. Now I am asking whether [Mr Zureikat's alleged illegal behaviour] troubles you."
The MP said he was troubled by the thought that Mr Zureikat, whose best man he was, might face prosecution.
Mr Zureikat was a chairman of the Mariam Appeal, founded by Mr Galloway to help a four-year-old Iraqi girl, Mariam Hamza, who suffered from leukaemia. It later became known that Mr Zureikat, who had close ties to the Iraqi regime, had also funded the Mariam Appeal.
Mr Galloway at first refused to say that he was troubled by his friend's alleged illegal actions. Instead he chose to emphasise the suffering of Iraqi children under UN sanctions.
That brought a swift rebuke from Sen Levin, a former civil rights lawyer.
Would he be troubled by that? the professorial senator asked again. "That is a very simple question."
When Mr Galloway appeared to evade the issue again, Sen Levin interrupted. To laughter, he said: "I know other things trouble you but can you just give us a straightforward answer?
"You give us a long explanation of other things that trouble you, which is your right. Now I am asking whether [Mr Zureikat's alleged illegal behaviour] troubles you."
The MP said he was troubled by the thought that Mr Zureikat, whose best man he was, might face prosecution.
This wasn't some anonymous source of funds. The Iraqi documents noted that Galloway would receive funds through an intermediary. How convenient that he had intimate ties to a man who had "intimate" ties with Saddam's regime. How convenient that this man just happened to drop $600,000 US into the company that Galloway ran.
I will admit that the evidence is circumstantial at this point. However, it is very fishy and Galloway's evasiveness make me suspicious. Did he really answer the charges? He made plenty of accusations himself. He would have made you proud, Wertz, with his (irrelevant) charges of illegal American wars and improper behavior by others.
His performance rang of a well-rehearsed scene from a movie. He seemed to have decided that going on the offensive would deflect charges from him.
Bay Oil will have their day in court (according to the Senators). Oh wait, Chalmers has already been indicted.
QUOTE
Chalmers is accused of wire fraud, conducting financial transactions with a state sponsor of terrorism and breaking the economic embargo with Iraq.
Criminal charges have also been levied against Bayoil USA and a Bayoil subsidiary chartered in the Bahamas.
<snip>
The Chalmers and Bayoil indictments are the second case brought by federal prosecutors investigating the oil-for-food program.
Criminal charges have also been levied against Bayoil USA and a Bayoil subsidiary chartered in the Bahamas.
<snip>
The Chalmers and Bayoil indictments are the second case brought by federal prosecutors investigating the oil-for-food program.
So the charges that the US government will look the other way with US companies is bunk.
QUOTE(Amlord @ May 18 2005, 07:37 PM)
Ah...good point Wertz.
I'm certainly not saying that Zurayqat is above reproach or that Galloway was not dealing with a shady businessman. But it's a bit of a leap to say that, since Zurayqat was involved with Iraqi oil schemes that "that's where the money came from" for the Mariam Appeal. It's like saying that, since Chalmers profited from illegal oil trading, those profits went directly into the coffers of the RNC. Clearly, both Zurayqat and Chalmers are men with a bit of money to throw around - and I doubt that all of it came directly from Saddam Hussein, in either case.
Wealthy men make contributions - and the recipients seldom question the variety of sources from whence the wealth that allows for such contributions arose. Attempting to smear Galloway due to Zurayqat's dealings is like attempting to smear Sen. Phil Gramm because of Bay Oil transactions. Or are we arguing that Zurayqat is worse because he has an Arabic name rather than an "American" one?
Just so everyone is clear on this situation (and how it differs from a campaign contribution):
Zurayqat founded a charity (although not registered as a charity), obstensibly to pay for the medical care of a four year old Iraqi girl with leukemia and other Iraqi children. Subsequently, Galloway takes over the chairmanship of this charity and during this interim, Zurayqat donates a lump sum of $600,000 US.
During a UK investigation of the charity, Galloway tells the Charity Commission of the UK and Wales that for one reason or another, the books for the charity have been shipped to Jordan and/or Iraq and that they were no longer under the control of Mariam's Appeal. source
Part of the activities of the Appeal was a lobbying campaign to end the sanctions on Iraq. Coincidentally, Saddam Hussein was also using oil bribes during this period in order to bring the sanctions to an end.
Of course, Galloway told the press that "The Mariam Appeal's finances were exhaustively investigated by the Charity Commission and nothing improper was found." link Of course, he left off the part about the books being unavailable for review.
He also left off the part about Mariam (whose name was used as the lightning rod for fundraising for the group) has received next to nothing, while the organization's political spending numbers in the millions.
Pennies for Mariam
Interestingly, documents by the Telegraph say that Galloway received 375,000 pounds from Saddam. Galloway has acknowledged receiving a startlingly similar amount from Zurayqat.
The Telegraph also claims that Galloway authorized Zurayqat to operate on his behalf while in Iraq. source
The whole thing is a bit more complicated than simply false (and repeated) allegations made against Galloway. What possible motive could the US Senate have for asking a foreign national who is not within their jurisdiction for punishment to come and testify? Especially if they forged or made up the charges or evidence? It just doesn't make sense.
Galloway has quite a few things going on (including multiple trips to Iraq in the time leading up to the invasion) to make someone go
That doesn't mean he is guilty of anything, but he is definitely very suspicious.
Zurayqat founded a charity (although not registered as a charity), obstensibly to pay for the medical care of a four year old Iraqi girl with leukemia and other Iraqi children. Subsequently, Galloway takes over the chairmanship of this charity and during this interim, Zurayqat donates a lump sum of $600,000 US.
During a UK investigation of the charity, Galloway tells the Charity Commission of the UK and Wales that for one reason or another, the books for the charity have been shipped to Jordan and/or Iraq and that they were no longer under the control of Mariam's Appeal. source
Part of the activities of the Appeal was a lobbying campaign to end the sanctions on Iraq. Coincidentally, Saddam Hussein was also using oil bribes during this period in order to bring the sanctions to an end.
Of course, Galloway told the press that "The Mariam Appeal's finances were exhaustively investigated by the Charity Commission and nothing improper was found." link Of course, he left off the part about the books being unavailable for review.
He also left off the part about Mariam (whose name was used as the lightning rod for fundraising for the group) has received next to nothing, while the organization's political spending numbers in the millions.
Pennies for Mariam
Interestingly, documents by the Telegraph say that Galloway received 375,000 pounds from Saddam. Galloway has acknowledged receiving a startlingly similar amount from Zurayqat.
The Telegraph also claims that Galloway authorized Zurayqat to operate on his behalf while in Iraq. source
QUOTE
George Galloway: "[Fawaz Zureikat] is not my intermediary. He doesn't act on my behalf and I have never received money or vouchers, whatever they are, from him. He was a friend who was doing business in Iraq before I knew him."
The Telegraph: During the interview with this paper on April 21 last year, Mr Galloway was asked: "Did you write a letter nominating or naming Mr Zureikat as your representative, or the [Mariam] campaign's representative, in Baghdad?" Mr Galloway replied: "Yes."
The Telegraph's Baghdad papers contained a letter purportedly from Mr Galloway and bearing his House of Commons address and a signature similar to his own.
Addressed "To whom it may concern", it stated: "This is to certify that Mr Fawaz A. Zureikat is my representative in Baghdad on all matters concerning my work with the Mariam Appeal or the Emergency Committee in Iraq." The letter referred to Mr Zureikat's "dealings on my behalf".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Galloway: The documents on which the latest story is based were apparently discovered by the Iraqi newspaper Al Mada, which is owned by Ahmad Chalabi, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council who is wanted in Jordan for fraud.
The Telegraph: Al Mada is not owned by Ahmad Chalabi. The owner and editor-in-chief is Fakhri Kareem, a Kurd who was formerly a member of the politburo of the Iraqi communist party. Mr Chalabi denies the alleged fraud.
Mr Hankes-Drielsma was asked by a congressman whether Al Mada was owned by his friend, Mr Chalabi. He replied that Al Mada was owned by an Iraqi of some "animosity" to Mr Chalabi and that the leaking of the list was regarded as regrettable by the Iraqi Governing Council.
The Telegraph: During the interview with this paper on April 21 last year, Mr Galloway was asked: "Did you write a letter nominating or naming Mr Zureikat as your representative, or the [Mariam] campaign's representative, in Baghdad?" Mr Galloway replied: "Yes."
The Telegraph's Baghdad papers contained a letter purportedly from Mr Galloway and bearing his House of Commons address and a signature similar to his own.
Addressed "To whom it may concern", it stated: "This is to certify that Mr Fawaz A. Zureikat is my representative in Baghdad on all matters concerning my work with the Mariam Appeal or the Emergency Committee in Iraq." The letter referred to Mr Zureikat's "dealings on my behalf".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Galloway: The documents on which the latest story is based were apparently discovered by the Iraqi newspaper Al Mada, which is owned by Ahmad Chalabi, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council who is wanted in Jordan for fraud.
The Telegraph: Al Mada is not owned by Ahmad Chalabi. The owner and editor-in-chief is Fakhri Kareem, a Kurd who was formerly a member of the politburo of the Iraqi communist party. Mr Chalabi denies the alleged fraud.
Mr Hankes-Drielsma was asked by a congressman whether Al Mada was owned by his friend, Mr Chalabi. He replied that Al Mada was owned by an Iraqi of some "animosity" to Mr Chalabi and that the leaking of the list was regarded as regrettable by the Iraqi Governing Council.
The whole thing is a bit more complicated than simply false (and repeated) allegations made against Galloway. What possible motive could the US Senate have for asking a foreign national who is not within their jurisdiction for punishment to come and testify? Especially if they forged or made up the charges or evidence? It just doesn't make sense.
Galloway has quite a few things going on (including multiple trips to Iraq in the time leading up to the invasion) to make someone go
That doesn't mean he is guilty of anything, but he is definitely very suspicious.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ May 18 2005, 07:17 PM)
Since we obviously must be led to believe an unnamed, unconfirmed source concerning flushing a Koran down a toilet, why can't we believe an unnamed source from Saddams regime and SOMA, in the Senate's "Report on Oil Allocations Granted to Charles Pasqua & George Galloway", who states that the Oil For Food Program was was nicknamed the "Saddam Bribery System"?
No one anywhere is denying that the Qur'an was desecrated at Guantanamo Bay. And no one is denying that the Oil for Food program was abused. The difference here is that Newsweek did not say Sgt. Joseph Schmo desecrated a Qur'an, while the Senate Investigations Committee is saying George Galloway, MP, abused the Oil for Food program. Newsweek did not make such an allegation because its sources did not support such an allegation. The Committee is making such an allegation despite the fact that its sources do not support such an allegation.
QUOTE(Amlord @ May 18 2005, 11:09 PM)
Just so everyone is clear on this situation (and how it differs from a campaign contribution):
Zurayqat founded a charity (although not registered as a charity), obstensibly to pay for the medical care of a four year old Iraqi girl with leukemia and other Iraqi children.
Part of the activities of the Appeal was a lobbying campaign to end the sanctions on Iraq. Coincidentally, Saddam Hussein was also using oil bribes during this period in order to bring the sanctions to an end.
Okay, let's be really clear here. Zurayqat did not found a charity. The Mariam Appeal was not set up exclusively to benefit Mariam Hamza. It was set up to campaign against sanctions which were resulting in children like Mariam Hamza not receiving proper medical care. The Appeal was set up to end the sanctions, using Mariam Hamza as its - literal - poster child.
It was the Charity Commission for England and Wales that decided that the Mariam Appeal should be classified as a charity and that its activities should adhere to their guidelines. This was prompted by a complaint which stated that "funds held by the Mariam Appeal were held for purposes which were, or were capable of being, charitable, and that these funds had been used for non-charitable purposes". Essentially, this is like saying "Let us decree that your business is, in fact, a non-profit organization so we can determine whether or not it's making a profit and then prosecute you for it". The first part of the tactic worked: the Mariam Appeal was decreed a charitable organization. The second part failed. Even though the Charity Commission decided, after the fact, that the Appeal should be treated as a charity, they still found no malfeasance. Tough luck for those who wanted to bring Galloway down.
QUOTE(Amlord @ May 18 2005, 11:09 PM)
Of course, Galloway told the press that "The Mariam Appeal's finances were exhaustively investigated by the Charity Commission and nothing improper was found."
Of course, he left off the part about the books being unavailable for review.
Of course, he left off the part about the books being unavailable for review.
And you left off the part about the Commission finding that, even without all of the books being available (though many of the books, including those referring to the set-up of the Appeal, were available), "the services provided were of value to the Appeal and as there was no evidence of bad faith on behalf of any member of the Executive Committee" and that "the political activities of the Appeal were capable of being viewed as ancillary to the purposes of the Appeal" and that "the founders of the Appeal were unaware that they had created a charity [by the Commission's definition]" and that "the Commission has found no evidence that the funds of the Appeal were misapplied".
QUOTE(Amlord @ May 18 2005, 11:09 PM)
He also left off the part about Mariam (whose name was used as the lightning rod for fundraising for the group) has received next to nothing, while the organization's political spending numbers in the millions.
You - and your WSJ source - also left off the part about Mariam Hamza having been flown to both the UK and the US for treatment (at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars) and that her life has, so far, been extended by seven years. You also left out the fact that the father is being quoted in 2003 - after the country had been "liberated", after sanctions had been lifted, and after the free free free Iraq should have had the capability of looking after its own citizens without the interference of Saddam Hussein. You also left out the fact that Mariam's father said - in the same source article which the WSJ used - that "I still thank God because my child was helped by Galloway who took her to a foreign hospital. It saved the life of my daughter."
Shouldn't those in a free, liberated democracy be able to look after their own children without "hand-outs", Amlord? Or are you now campaigning for national healthcare in Iraq?
The whole thing is a bit more complicated than the simply false (and repeated) allegations made against Galloway - but those simply false (and repeated) allegations are certainly not helping to make everyone "clear on this situation".
QUOTE(Wertz @ May 18 2005, 05:45 PM)
It is possible, of course, that the Clinton administration was also made aware of illegal oil sales prior to this, but no one has presented any evidence to that effect. Maybe the Republican staff of the Senate Investigations Committee should try a real investigation into the sales if they want to make this another Blame Clinton First exercise - but then, their investigations would have to center around companies that sponsor their party and its candidates rather than inventing evidence to implicate foreign nationals who opposed their peerless leader. So we're not likely to see that happening.
Just to clarify....my goal here wasn't to blame Clinton. Rather, I would prefer to substitute the term US administration for Bush administration...basically, take the politics out of it completely. That's the only way the real truth would be know. Now, how to make that happen? Not sure.....but I do think pinning this solely on Bush when it was likely continuing US policiy isn't getting us any closer to that. Is the goal to find out what happened, or to smear Bush? I'd rather find out what happened...the smearing will then take care of itself.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ May 19 2005, 01:07 PM)
Is the goal to find out what happened, or to smear Bush? I'd rather find out what happened...the smearing will then take care of itself.
I'd rather find out what happened, as well. But it strikes me that the goal of this particular investigation is not to find out what happened. Ever since the "scandal" emerged, it has been used as a weapon, targeting specific individuals and politicians in specific countries and institutions.
From the first time this story broke, it has been rife with misinformation, innuendo, false statements, and spin. And the Senate Investigations Committee has done nothing to cut through partisan rhetoric to get to "what happened". Even the unearthing of evidence against Chalmers was probably as much a partisan move on the part of the Democratic Staff of the Committee as it was an attempt to get at the truth (though, at least in this case, there does seem to be some evidence).
Frankly, I think the best move would be to scrap the current investigation altogether and start over with a non-partisan body. Throw out all of the forged documents, throw out all of the dubious and coerced "testimony", throw out everything the Senate has "uncovered", and just begin a again with a clean slate. I hate to say it, but I suspect this would be a job better left to the UN or some other international body than any committee in the most divisive Congress in American history.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.