NationStates Jolt Archive

And boy is it a doosey. Here's the last couple of paragraphs.
"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."

Here's the entire transcript. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1616578_1,00.html)

What can I say.

*zing*

Boy is our Senate's ass red after that spanking.

Galloway is a leftist fool, but I admire his Scottish spunk. If only conservatives could learn...

Yes, lets just divert the attention from the corruption in the UN and shift it all to the US! Brilliant! Obviously two wrongs make a right or you wouldnt be posting this. Or, you are clinging on to the fading notion that the UN is in actuality not the bloated leech on the worlds governments that is riddled with corruption and scandal that it really is.

I don't think he's turning attention from the UN corruption, in fact he's highlighting how the US has screwed up more than any other nation in regards to Iraqi management.

I don't think he's turning attention from the UN corruption, in fact he's highlighting how the US has screwed up more than any other nation in regards to Iraqi management.

O rly?

Yes I concede that point. Wait no I dont, remember the last Iraqi government? I think they did a far worse job of managing the country than we did. With the torture, gassing of citizens, ethnic cleansing, numerous wars, etc etc.

Yes, lets just divert the attention from the corruption in the UN and shift it all to the US! Brilliant! Obviously two wrongs make a right or you wouldnt be posting this. Or, you are clinging on to the fading notion that the UN is in actualitynot the bloated leech on the worlds governments that is riddled with corruption and scandal that it really is.The US is right to highlight UN corruption. However, it's wasting its time on Galloway. Objectionable demagogue though he is, he's still innocent.

Yes, lets just divert the attention from the corruption in the UN and shift it all to the US! Brilliant! Obviously two wrongs make a right or you wouldnt be posting this. Or, you are clinging on to the fading notion that the UN is in actuality not the bloated leech on the worlds governments that is riddled with corruption and scandal that it really is.

Divert attention? You're too touchy. The original post showed that the commitee was wrong in accusing Galloway and that he put them firmly in their place. I have seen too many people bullied by such commitees, if only more had the courage of Galloway. By the way, I don't like him but that doesn't stop me admiring his oratory and intelligence.

US 'backed illegal Iraqi oil deals'

Report claims blind eye was turned to sanctions busting by American firms

Julian Borger and Jamie Wilson in Washington
Tuesday May 17, 2005
The Guardian

The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.
A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary 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.

The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.

Full story here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html)

[QUOTE=Greater Valia]O rly?
I think they did a far worse job of managing the country (Iraq) than we did.

I think you'll find most Iraqis will disagree with you.

[QUOTE=Greater Valia]O rly?
I think they did a far worse job of managing the country (Iraq) than we did.

I think you'll find most Iraqis will disagree with you.

I think not. Why would you say this? Im sure the Shi ite (sp?) and the Kurdish populations would most likely agree that they are glad that the Baath party and Saddam Hussein are gone.

I don't think he's turning attention from the UN corruption, in fact he's highlighting how the US has screwed up more than any other nation in regards to Iraqi management.
By doing so he's skirting the issue of his culpability in UN corruption. It's classic defense tactic. When you know you've been implicated in wrong doing and there is mountains of evidence against you, try to divert attention to something else. And that is exactly what Mr. Galloway is doing. SKirting the issue and refusing to answer the questions.

[QUOTE=Globes R Us]

I think not. Why would you say this? Im sure the Shi ite (sp?) and the Kurdish populations would most likely agree that they are glad that the Baath party and Saddam Hussein are gone.

The Iraqis endured decades of bloody tyranny under Sadaam but they had security, water, electricity, order, half-decent health care and education. Under the coalition, they are afraid to walk their own streets, send their children to school, intermittant power and water etc. Of course they're glad to be rid of the butcher of Baghdad, but they find themselves in an even worse situation now.

US 'backed illegal Iraqi oil deals'

Report claims blind eye was turned to sanctions busting by American firms

Julian Borger and Jamie Wilson in Washington
Tuesday May 17, 2005
The Guardian

The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.
A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary 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.

The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.

Full story here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html)

The Guardian is not a neutral source. We know it is run by anti american liberals.

[QUOTE=Globes R Us]

I think not. Why would you say this? Im sure the Shi ite (sp?) and the Kurdish populations would most likely agree that they are glad that the Baath party and Saddam Hussein are gone.

They probably would. I'm sure they'd also agree with that they don't like massive military invasions, bombing of infrastructure, use of cluster bombs, destruction of hospitals, widespread violence and mayhem.

I'm not sure what that proves either, but if you want to pretend to read the minds of Iraqis so can I.

What I can state with confidence is that the invasion was illegal and immoral.

By doing so he's skirting the issue of his culpability in UN corruption. It's classic defense tactic. When you know you've been implicated in wrong doing and there is mountains of evidence against you, try to divert attention to something else. And that is exactly what Mr. Galloway is doing. SKirting the issue and refusing to answer the questions.

I should try reading the transcript if I were you. He is innocent, something we're supposed to value. It wasn't him who started the enquiry but he bloody-well finished it.

The Guardian is not a neutral source. We know it is run by anti american liberals.

Is everyone who disagrees with you an "anti-american liberal" and thus dismissed out of hand?

The Guardian is not a neutral source. We know it is run by anti american liberals.

Oh please, use your own brain and read what he's been accused of and how he's trashed it. Not all liberals are anti-American, I know, I'm one.

I should try reading the transcript if I were you. He is innocent, something we're supposed to value. It wasn't him who started the enquiry but he bloody-well finished it.
Just because a person cries bloody murder that they are innocent does not mean they are. Criminals claim innocence with emotional monologues all the time. The fact is that the evidence the Senate outweighs his claims.

By doing so he's skirting the issue of his culpability in UN corruption. It's classic defense tactic. When you know you've been implicated in wrong doing and there is mountains of evidence against you, try to divert attention to something else. And that is exactly what Mr. Galloway is doing. SKirting the issue and refusing to answer the questions.

You didn't read the transcript did you? He doesn't skirt the issue. He addresses every point without equivocation. Read the transcript, read the article. Then try to think.

Just because a person cries bloody murder that they are innocent does not mean they are. Criminals claim innocence with emotional monologues all the time. The fact is that the evidence the Senate outweighs his claims.

Sorry, if you want to use evidence, then he's innocent. Or perhaps you have secret intelligence the rest of us aren't privy too?

O rly?

Yes I concede that point. Wait no I dont, remember the last Iraqi government? I think they did a far worse job of managing the country than we did. With the torture, gassing of citizens, ethnic cleansing, numerous wars, etc etc.
This, however, is arguable. We obviously have yet to screw up the country as much as the previous government, however we're working on a much smaller time frame. Given 10 more years of occupation under the current administration's control and I think this statement would have to be reevaluated.

I'm not of course saying this will happen, just saying give us some time in the ball court, being a super-power does not make destroying a country quick and easy (without nukes, anyways).

This, however, is arguable. We obviously have yet to screw up the country as much as the previous government, however we're working on a much smaller time frame. Given 10 more years of occupation under the current administration's control and I think this statement would have to be reevaluated.

I'm not of course saying this will happen, just saying give us some time in the ball court, being a super-power does not make destroying a country quick and easy (without nukes, anyways).

You make a reasoned argument but was / is the possible decent future of Iraq worth so many lives, Iraqi and coalition? And if and when Iraq does become a democratic nation, it's most likely form will be a Muslim one and probably fundamentalist.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7883488/

Senator Coleman said: "Senior Hussein regime officials informed the subcommittee that the allocation holders — in this case, Galloway — were ultimately responsible for the surcharge payment and therefore would have known of the illegal, under-the-table payment,"

The information is not coming from the CIA. Its coming from former Iraqi government officials who are saying that they did indeed do business with Galloway.

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

A report that came from the interviews with the Iraqis stated "deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein granted Galloway vouchers for 20 million barrels of oil between 2000 and 2003."

Coleman, a former district attorney, told Galloway before his sworn testimony that "senior Iraqi officials have confirmed that you, in fact, received oil allocations and that the documents that identify you as an allocation recipient are valid."

At one point he admits being cozy with Iraqi officials:
"He said he was "friendly" with former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz and met him many times"

"Other allegations reportedly came from Iraqi detainees."

"The subcommittee report, relying on Iraqi Oil Ministry documents and interviews with detained Saddam loyalists, alleged that Galloway received allocations for 20 million barrels from June 2000 to June 2003 and arranged for two companies, Aredio Petroleum-France and Middle East Advanced Semiconductor Inc., to take delivery of the crude." They have documenation.

You make a reasoned argument but was / is the possible decent future of Iraq worth so many lives, Iraqi and coalition? And if and when Iraq does become a democratic nation, it's most likely form will be a Muslim one and probably fundamentalist.
At least we are giving them the chance that the libs aren't willing to let them have. If they want muslim, fundementalist democracy that's their decision. Its not the plact of liberals to go around insisting that Iraqis aren't fit for democracy. Everyone is fit for democracy if someone is willing to provide them the chance to choose it. And the US is that someone.

Even America's own liberals think Galloway was lying.

From the Associated Press
"Speaking to reporters after the hearing, both Coleman and the panel's top Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, questioned Galloway's credibility. Asked if Galloway violated his oath to tell the truth before the committee, Coleman said, "I don't know. We'll have to look over the record."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7883488/

Senator Coleman said: "Senior Hussein regime officials informed the subcommittee that the allocation holders — in this case, Galloway — were ultimately responsible for the surcharge payment and therefore would have known of the illegal, under-the-table payment,"

The information is not coming from the CIA. Its coming from former Iraqi government officials who are saying that they did indeed do business with Galloway.

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

A report that came from the interviews with the Iraqis stated "deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein granted Galloway vouchers for 20 million barrels of oil between 2000 and 2003."

Coleman, a former district attorney, told Galloway before his sworn testimony that "senior Iraqi officials have confirmed that you, in fact, received oil allocations and that the documents that identify you as an allocation recipient are valid."

At one point he admits being cozy with Iraqi officials:
"He said he was "friendly" with former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz and met him many times"

"Other allegations reportedly came from Iraqi detainees."

"The subcommittee report, relying on Iraqi Oil Ministry documents and interviews with detained Saddam loyalists, alleged that Galloway received allocations for 20 million barrels from June 2000 to June 2003 and arranged for two companies, Aredio Petroleum-France and Middle East Advanced Semiconductor Inc., to take delivery of the crude." They have documenation.
I should note that these weren't Provisional Government officials, these were Saddam's officials that had named him. The documents came not from the Provisional Government but from the government of Saddam Hussien.

I was just having a thought. If Mr. Galloway is really as innocent as he says he is, surely he would not object to his own government going through his bank accounts to make sure he didn't recieve any kickbacks. Unless of course its really easy hide all that money and oil shares. Or even searching his properties for to check for evidence.
If they find nothing, it increases the likelyhood that he is innocent. If they find something however....
And if he refuses, it would not exactly look to good for him. (Can you say "attempted cover up"?)

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7883488/

Senator Coleman said: "Senior Hussein regime officials informed the subcommittee that the allocation holders — in this case, Galloway — were ultimately responsible for the surcharge payment and therefore would have known of the illegal, under-the-table payment,"

The information is not coming from the CIA. Its coming from former Iraqi government officials who are saying that they did indeed do business with Galloway.

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

A report that came from the interviews with the Iraqis stated "deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein granted Galloway vouchers for 20 million barrels of oil between 2000 and 2003."

Coleman, a former district attorney, told Galloway before his sworn testimony that "senior Iraqi officials have confirmed that you, in fact, received oil allocations and that the documents that identify you as an allocation recipient are valid."

At one point he admits being cozy with Iraqi officials:
"He said he was "friendly" with former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz and met him many times"

"Other allegations reportedly came from Iraqi detainees."

"The subcommittee report, relying on Iraqi Oil Ministry documents and interviews with detained Saddam loyalists, alleged that Galloway received allocations for 20 million barrels from June 2000 to June 2003 and arranged for two companies, Aredio Petroleum-France and Middle East Advanced Semiconductor Inc., to take delivery of the crude." They have documenation.

"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."

That should answer the question of whether or not he would have been able to oversee oil purchases.


"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.

Where is he getting the money from? It sounds like the Senate is making false claims that they are refusing to back up.


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.

So there are his two meetings, in which of these was he able to buy 20 million barrels of crude?

I'd also like to note several of your soruces in there: its all coming from people who would love to see someone fall with them. Ex-baath party officials and detainees, people who are desperate and will say anything to try and get some freedom.

The sources also repeatedly say that the Us congress "has sources" but not once does the US actually present these sources for questioning.

The Guardian is not a neutral source. We know it is run by anti american liberals.
Liberal (in US and UK terms) - yes. Anti-American - no.

Galloway has already been found innocent in a UK court. I don't give a damn if American liberals think he's lying, that just makes them the same as his conservative accusers: wrong.

Jesus, this isn't about liberals versus conservatives. Galloway is neither, for one thing.

That should answer the question of whether or not he would have been able to oversee oil purchases.



Where is he getting the money from? It sounds like the Senate is making false claims that they are refusing to back up.



So there are his two meetings, in which of these was he able to buy 20 million barrels of crude?

I'd also like to note several of your soruces in there: its all coming from people who would love to see someone fall with them. Ex-baath party officials and detainees, people who are desperate and will say anything to try and get some freedom.

The sources also repeatedly say that the Us congress "has sources" but not once does the US actually present these sources for questioning.


1. He would have had someone else oversee the transactions on his behalf.
His credibility is being questioned not just be Republicans but by Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer, both anti Bushies.

2. The US government does not public disclose its sources for national security reasons.

3. There's a fellow in my hometown. Whittier. Every Council meeting, when there was public hearing for this or that. The hearing would be about rezoning a district. This fellow would get up and start talking bout trolleys and how corrupt and evil the city was cause it didn't listen to him on trolleys."
Mr. Galloway is just like that fellow.

Galloway has already been found innocent in a UK court. I don't give a damn if American liberals think he's lying, that just makes them the same as his conservative accusers: wrong.

Jesus, this isn't about liberals versus conservatives. Galloway is neither, for one thing.
Apparently your are right since both US liberals and conservatives are calling him a liar.

And when was he tried? Your source? A link?

1. He would have had someone else oversee the transactions on his behalf.
His credibility is being questioned not just be Republicans but by Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer, both anti Bushies.

2. The US government does not public disclose its sources for national security reasons.

3. There's a fellow in my hometown. Whittier. Every Council meeting, when there was public hearing for this or that. The hearing would be about rezoning a district. This fellow would get up and start talking bout trolleys and how corrupt and evil the city was cause it didn't listen to him on trolleys."
Mr. Galloway is just like that fellow.

1. Yet there has been no proof administered to back up this point.
2. Right right. National Security. So they're going to indict a man on baseless charges because of 'nation security'. Thats a bit flimsy. Not to mention not really legal.
3. I'm not sure I understand the analogy there.

I was just having a thought. If Mr. Galloway is really as innocent as he says he is, surely he would not object to his own government going through his bank accounts to make sure he didn't recieve any kickbacks. Unless of course its really easy hide all that money and oil shares. Or even searching his properties for to check for evidence.
If they find nothing, it increases the likelyhood that he is innocent. If they find something however....
And if he refuses, it would not exactly look to good for him. (Can you say "attempted cover up"?)
Galloway has already been under investigation ordered by Lord Goldsmith, the British Attorney General. His bank accounts were subject to forensic investigation by British attorneys and it was found by the investigation that he didn't recieve a single penny in kickbacks, nor did he make a single improper payment.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4569056


After some 45 minutes of testimony, Mr Galloway’s time was up. Outside in the corridor small beads of sweat were apparent on his forehead perhaps an indication that things had not been as easy as he implied.


Why would he be sweating in front of the committee if he really believed he was innocent?

1. Yet there has been no proof administered to back up this point.
2. Right right. National Security. So they're going to indict a man on baseless charges because of 'nation security'. Thats a bit flimsy. Not to mention not really legal.
3. I'm not sure I understand the analogy there.
2. It is perfectly legal.

3. The Committee was talking bout corruption in the UN, and Mr. Galloway was monologing on about how the US was an evil empire that should have listened to him and not invaded Iraq.

Why sweating? It's a wee bit scary, no? The room is hot, perhaps? Sigh.

One link (I'm still hunting):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4061165.stm

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4569056


After some 45 minutes of testimony, Mr Galloway’s time was up. Outside in the corridor small beads of sweat were apparent on his forehead perhaps an indication that things had not been as easy as he implied.


Why would he be sweating in front of the committee if he really believed he was innocent?

You are joking right? You don't really believe that persperation is evidence of guild do you? 45 minutes of contentious, repetitious and intense cross examination would make anyone sweat.

Galloway has already been under investigation ordered by Lord Goldsmith, the British Attorney General. His bank accounts were subject to forensic investigation by British attorneys and it was found by the investigation that he didn't recieve a single penny in kickbacks, nor did he make a single improper payment.
I am waiting for a link.

I didn't even know about this one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3549679.stm

Why sweating? It's a wee bit scary, no? The room is hot, perhaps? Sigh.

One link (I'm still hunting):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4061165.stm
That case is being appealed.

You are joking right? You don't really believe that persperation is evidence of guild do you? 45 minutes of contentious, repetitious and intense cross examination would make anyone sweat.
If you have something to hide.

Why would he be sweating in front of the committee if he really believed he was innocent?
A) Because it's hot under TV lights?

B) Because being grilled toasts you?

I am waiting for a link.

Well, here (javascript:launchAVConsoleStory('4556887')) is the complete video of his testimony, which I've just finished watching. It also includes his question-answer session with the committee members.

That case is being appealed
Where exactly in the article does it say that the case is being appealed? Care to provide a link?

Check this out from that liberal paper someone posted a link to earlier:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/otherparties/story/0,9061,1483783,00.html

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/23981.htm

Well, here (javascript:launchAVConsoleStory('4556887')) is the complete video of his testimony, which I've just finished watching. It also includes his question-answer session with the committee members.


Where exactly in the article does it say that the case is being appealed? Care to provide a link?
It was in one of the links I already posted.

Check this out from that liberal paper someone posted a link to earlier:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/otherparties/story/0,9061,1483783,00.html

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/23981.htm
Er, your first link is to the readers' letters page of the Guardian. Hardly an authoritative source.

A Long time ago on a message board far, far away...


LINK WARS

Episode 4

A New Thread...


(Okay imagine it in yellow lettering 14 feet high, receding into the distance...)

Check this out from that liberal paper someone posted a link to earlier:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/otherparties/story/0,9061,1483783,00.html

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/23981.htm

Yeah, and some idiot dismissed the Guardian I posted earlier about the US being responsible for 52% of oil kick backs under oil for food because it's "anti-American and liberal".

I wondered what he'd say if he saw the article you just posted? "Fair and balanced?"
Oh, and slapping a libel suit on someone is perfectly reasonable if you have been libelled, don't you think?

A Long time ago on a message board far, far away...


LINK WARS

Episode 4

A New Thread...


(Okay imagine it in yellow lettering 14 feet high, receding into the distance...)
Ha!

One last one that's quite interesting and doesn't entirely vindicate my argument (I'm trying to be fair, here):

http://www.a2mediagroup.com/?c=49&a=5192&sid=ca813415e90dc1b7b8815fc27af97357

*Yawn* Almost 2AM EDT. Beddy byes. G'night all.

OK, I just read the NYP article - I take it that it's NOT in fact a newspaper? See, that article is a disgrace to journalism.

*Yawn* Almost 2AM EDT. Beddy byes. G'night all.
'night - nearly 7am here.

Whittier, why are you so keen on defaming and wanting to 'prove' guilty a man against whom no-one can find any credible evidence? I always assume a persons innocence no matter who. I didn't pre-judge OJ, I left that to the court, I'm doing the same with Jackson. I'd give you British instances too but that seems pointless as you don't seem to know anything about the Galloway case as tried in Britain.

'Mariam's Appeal, and several companies associated with Mr. Zureikat, are listed on records that the committee says document allocations worth 20 million barrels of oil from 2000 to 2003. The panel's investigators have indicated that Mr. Galloway used the charity to conceal oil payments. But the committee has produced no documents that show that Mr. Galloway or his charity actually received money.'
New York Times.

'"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," he said.

He said that Coleman's panel based some of its accusations on the same fake documents used by the Daily Telegraph newspaper, which he sued for libel and won a $1.4 million libel judgment. The committee says it used different documents.'
Canada.com

'Galloway bluntly confronted Coleman and challenged the attorney to back up claims the British MP profited handsomely from the now defunct program.'
Arab News

'The Senate committee said it had "detailed evidence" that Galloway received some 20 million barrels of oil in allocations from the Saddam regime.

Galloway, who was drummed out of Britain's ruling Labour Party because of his opposition to the Iraq war, derisively swept aside those charges.

"Who paid me hundreds of thousand of dollars? The answer is nobody," said the British lawmaker.

And far from being an avid supporter of Saddam, as congressional accusers have alleged, Galloway said he had been an active opponent of the regime.

"I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do, and than any member of the British or American governments do."

"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein at a time when British and American governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas," he said.

Galloway proudly waved his anti-war credentials at the hearing.

His scathing denunciation of the Iraq venture left some U.S. lawmakers squirming in their seats, particularly when he urged them to refocus their U.N. investigations from the world body and onto the role played by Washington.'
Japan Today.

'GALLOWAY: Yes, although they wouldn't say who the official was, whether the official's in Abu Ghraib prison, like the rest of the prisoners of the United States, or whether he's received some inducement or other. We don't know, because they won't name him.

And I think the era of secret evidence -- now that we know what we know about the secret evidence that led us into the war on Iraq -- is over. The public don't want to know about secret evidence that leaders can know that other people don't know.

The bottom line is this: if I had ever bought or sold a drop of Iraqi oil, you'd know about it. The man [that] gave me the money would be in front of this camera now. He'd have been in front of that Senate now. There would have been evidence.

"Show me the money," I challenged the Senate chairman. And he can't show me the money because no money ever, ever reached my hands. Our campaign against sanctions and war was funded by the king of the United Arab Emirates, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, two of the most important friends in the Middle East of the United States.'
CNN

'Mr Galloway, who set up his own left-wing party after being expelled from the Labour Party over the Iraq war, last year won £150,000 (A$364,000) libel damages from a British newspaper after it made similar claims.'
SBS Australia.

The U.S. committee said last week it had ``detailed evidence'' that under the Saddam Hussein-era U.N. oil-for-food programme, Iraq gave 20 million barrels of oil in allocations to Mr. Galloway, charges he derisively swept aside on Tuesday. ``Who paid me hundreds of thousand of dollars? The answer is nobody,'' said Mr. Galloway.

``I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein at a time when British and American governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas,'' he said
The Hindu. India.



“We need to look into the mirror at ourselves, as well as point fingers at others,” said Democratic Senator Carl Levin.

According to a report presented by Levin, which cites communications between the navy and merchant ships, “on occasion, the US actually facilitated the illicit oil sales, as happened in the Khor al-Amaya incident in 2003.”

This incident involves the largest single illicit sale of oil transported by ship out of Iraq during the sanctions period.

Over several weeks in February and March 2003, Iraq loaded over seven million barrels of oil onto seven seagoing oil tankers at the port of Khor al-Amaya in Southern Iraq, according to the report.

In exchange for this oil, the government of Jordan wired over 53 million dollars in hard currency to bank accounts under the control of the Hussein regime on the eve of the American invasion.

“We explicitly knew that ships were being used to deliver that,” said Levin, the ranking member of a subcommittee that has already blamed French, British and Russian officials for receiving bribes from the Iraqis.

The reports indicated that the US Navy was fully aware about the tankers and let them go. It cites an official from US company Odin Marine, which took part in the transactions and spoke about his communications with Harry French, a US naval commander.

“Commander French advised that he had no objections,” the report quoted David Young, the Odin Marine official, as saying.

“He said that he was sorry he could not say anything more. I told him I completely understood and I did not expect him to say anything more... I also asked commander French as a method of procedure if I could continue to call him to request permission for vessels to proceed to and depart from Iraq and he said that would be okay.”

The report indicates there were gaps in the US sanctions control regime and that US imports of Iraqi oil have helped finance about 52 percent of clandestine deals hatched illegally by the regime of Saddam Hussein.

It points to the role played by Bayoil, a Texas-based company, whose owners were indicted in the United States last month.

The company is accused of being the largest importer of Iraqi oil to the United States between 2000 and 2002 and selling more than 200 million barrels of oil at a time when the Iraqi regime demanded illegal kickbacks that sometimes went as high as 30 cents a barrel.

According to the report, officials at the Treasury Department in charge of exports and imports control failed to adequately control Bayoil despite requests from the United Nations.
Daily Times Pakistan.

'The ranking Minority Democrat on the panel, Senator Carl Levin, said the United States ignored illegal direct oil sales by the former Iraqi regime to Jordan, Syria and Turkey worth more than $8 billion, and on occasion actually facilitated illicit oil sales.[/]'
Voice Of America.

[i]'Coleman pressed Galloway on his relationship with Jordanian businessman Fawaz Zureikat. Galloway described Zureikat as the second largest contributor to the Mariam Appeal, while congressional investigators consider him Galloway's intermediary in receiving oil proceeds.

Asked if he knew that Zureikat was involved in oil deals with Iraq in 2001, Galloway said he knew Zureikat was doing extensive business in Iraq, but didn't know the details.

When Coleman reacted skeptically, Galloway told him, "There are lots of contributors to your political campaign funds. I don't suppose you ask any of them how they made the money they give you."'
Newsweek.


'"The problem with Senate hearings on such a serious multi-billion dollar scandal, is the lack of process," said Falk, "that is, for those accused to be able to defend themselves. (refering to the Galloway case and which he alone has been able to fight)
CBS

'But Saddam peddled influence by awarding favored politicians, journalists and others vouchers for oil that could then be resold at a profit. He also smuggled oil to Turkey, Jordan and Syria outside the program, often with the explicit approval of the United States and the rest of the U.N. Security Council.

As well as pointing the finger at politicians from Britain, France and Russia, committee investigators also argue that a Texas-based oil company, Bayoil, was involved in Saddam’s oil-for-food schemes. U.N. Security Council members including the United States often looked the other way, they said.

“On the one hand, the United States was at the U.N. trying to stop Iraq from imposing illegal surcharges on oil-for-food contacts,” Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said at the start of the hearing. “On the other hand, the U.S. ignored red flags that some U.S. companies might be paying those same illegal surcharges.”'
MSNBC

Well, here (javascript:launchAVConsoleStory('4556887')) is the complete video of his testimony, which I've just finished watching. It also includes his question-answer session with the committee members.


Where exactly in the article does it say that the case is being appealed? Care to provide a link?
the link doesn't work

Whittier, why are you so keen on defaming and wanting to 'prove' guilty a man against whom no-one can find any credible evidence? I always assume a persons innocence no matter who. I didn't pre-judge OJ, I left that to the court, I'm doing the same with Jackson. I'd give you British instances too but that seems pointless as you don't seem to know anything about the Galloway case as tried in Britain.

'Mariam's Appeal, and several companies associated with Mr. Zureikat, are listed on records that the committee says document allocations worth 20 million barrels of oil from 2000 to 2003. The panel's investigators have indicated that Mr. Galloway used the charity to conceal oil payments. But the committee has produced no documents that show that Mr. Galloway or his charity actually received money.'
New York Times.

'"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," he said.

He said that Coleman's panel based some of its accusations on the same fake documents used by the Daily Telegraph newspaper, which he sued for libel and won a $1.4 million libel judgment. The committee says it used different documents.'
Canada.com

'Galloway bluntly confronted Coleman and challenged the attorney to back up claims the British MP profited handsomely from the now defunct program.'
Arab News

'The Senate committee said it had "detailed evidence" that Galloway received some 20 million barrels of oil in allocations from the Saddam regime.

Galloway, who was drummed out of Britain's ruling Labour Party because of his opposition to the Iraq war, derisively swept aside those charges.

"Who paid me hundreds of thousand of dollars? The answer is nobody," said the British lawmaker.

And far from being an avid supporter of Saddam, as congressional accusers have alleged, Galloway said he had been an active opponent of the regime.

"I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do, and than any member of the British or American governments do."

"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein at a time when British and American governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas," he said.

Galloway proudly waved his anti-war credentials at the hearing.

His scathing denunciation of the Iraq venture left some U.S. lawmakers squirming in their seats, particularly when he urged them to refocus their U.N. investigations from the world body and onto the role played by Washington.'
Japan Today.

'GALLOWAY: Yes, although they wouldn't say who the official was, whether the official's in Abu Ghraib prison, like the rest of the prisoners of the United States, or whether he's received some inducement or other. We don't know, because they won't name him.

And I think the era of secret evidence -- now that we know what we know about the secret evidence that led us into the war on Iraq -- is over. The public don't want to know about secret evidence that leaders can know that other people don't know.

The bottom line is this: if I had ever bought or sold a drop of Iraqi oil, you'd know about it. The man [that] gave me the money would be in front of this camera now. He'd have been in front of that Senate now. There would have been evidence.

"Show me the money," I challenged the Senate chairman. And he can't show me the money because no money ever, ever reached my hands. Our campaign against sanctions and war was funded by the king of the United Arab Emirates, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, two of the most important friends in the Middle East of the United States.'
CNN

'Mr Galloway, who set up his own left-wing party after being expelled from the Labour Party over the Iraq war, last year won £150,000 (A$364,000) libel damages from a British newspaper after it made similar claims.'
SBS Australia.

The U.S. committee said last week it had ``detailed evidence'' that under the Saddam Hussein-era U.N. oil-for-food programme, Iraq gave 20 million barrels of oil in allocations to Mr. Galloway, charges he derisively swept aside on Tuesday. ``Who paid me hundreds of thousand of dollars? The answer is nobody,'' said Mr. Galloway.

``I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein at a time when British and American governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas,'' he said
The Hindu. India.



“We need to look into the mirror at ourselves, as well as point fingers at others,” said Democratic Senator Carl Levin.

According to a report presented by Levin, which cites communications between the navy and merchant ships, “on occasion, the US actually facilitated the illicit oil sales, as happened in the Khor al-Amaya incident in 2003.”

This incident involves the largest single illicit sale of oil transported by ship out of Iraq during the sanctions period.

Over several weeks in February and March 2003, Iraq loaded over seven million barrels of oil onto seven seagoing oil tankers at the port of Khor al-Amaya in Southern Iraq, according to the report.

In exchange for this oil, the government of Jordan wired over 53 million dollars in hard currency to bank accounts under the control of the Hussein regime on the eve of the American invasion.

“We explicitly knew that ships were being used to deliver that,” said Levin, the ranking member of a subcommittee that has already blamed French, British and Russian officials for receiving bribes from the Iraqis.

The reports indicated that the US Navy was fully aware about the tankers and let them go. It cites an official from US company Odin Marine, which took part in the transactions and spoke about his communications with Harry French, a US naval commander.

“Commander French advised that he had no objections,” the report quoted David Young, the Odin Marine official, as saying.

“He said that he was sorry he could not say anything more. I told him I completely understood and I did not expect him to say anything more... I also asked commander French as a method of procedure if I could continue to call him to request permission for vessels to proceed to and depart from Iraq and he said that would be okay.”

The report indicates there were gaps in the US sanctions control regime and that US imports of Iraqi oil have helped finance about 52 percent of clandestine deals hatched illegally by the regime of Saddam Hussein.

It points to the role played by Bayoil, a Texas-based company, whose owners were indicted in the United States last month.

The company is accused of being the largest importer of Iraqi oil to the United States between 2000 and 2002 and selling more than 200 million barrels of oil at a time when the Iraqi regime demanded illegal kickbacks that sometimes went as high as 30 cents a barrel.

According to the report, officials at the Treasury Department in charge of exports and imports control failed to adequately control Bayoil despite requests from the United Nations.
Daily Times Pakistan.

'The ranking Minority Democrat on the panel, Senator Carl Levin, said the United States ignored illegal direct oil sales by the former Iraqi regime to Jordan, Syria and Turkey worth more than $8 billion, and on occasion actually facilitated illicit oil sales.[/]'
Voice Of America.

[i]'Coleman pressed Galloway on his relationship with Jordanian businessman Fawaz Zureikat. Galloway described Zureikat as the second largest contributor to the Mariam Appeal, while congressional investigators consider him Galloway's intermediary in receiving oil proceeds.

Asked if he knew that Zureikat was involved in oil deals with Iraq in 2001, Galloway said he knew Zureikat was doing extensive business in Iraq, but didn't know the details.

When Coleman reacted skeptically, Galloway told him, "There are lots of contributors to your political campaign funds. I don't suppose you ask any of them how they made the money they give you."'
Newsweek.


'"The problem with Senate hearings on such a serious multi-billion dollar scandal, is the lack of process," said Falk, "that is, for those accused to be able to defend themselves. (refering to the Galloway case and which he alone has been able to fight)
CBS

'But Saddam peddled influence by awarding favored politicians, journalists and others vouchers for oil that could then be resold at a profit. He also smuggled oil to Turkey, Jordan and Syria outside the program, often with the explicit approval of the United States and the rest of the U.N. Security Council.

As well as pointing the finger at politicians from Britain, France and Russia, committee investigators also argue that a Texas-based oil company, Bayoil, was involved in Saddam’s oil-for-food schemes. U.N. Security Council members including the United States often looked the other way, they said.

“On the one hand, the United States was at the U.N. trying to stop Iraq from imposing illegal surcharges on oil-for-food contacts,” Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said at the start of the hearing. “On the other hand, the U.S. ignored red flags that some U.S. companies might be paying those same illegal surcharges.”'
MSNBC

Governments retain secret evidence privileges for national security reasons.

Nor am I defaming Galloway. Attempting to prove one guilty is not defamation.
The idea that you would resort to such a charge is ludicrus.
The fact is that Galloway continues to skirt the issue.

OK, I just read the NYP article - I take it that it's NOT in fact a newspaper? See, that article is a disgrace to journalism.

the post is essentially a joke, though a sad number of people still think it's real


http://www.supafamous.com/images/nypost.gif.

'Governments retain secret evidence privileges for national security reasons.

Nor am I defaming Galloway. Attempting to prove one guilty is not defamation.
The idea that you would resort to such a charge is ludicrus.
The fact is that Galloway continues to skirt the issue.'

Any government that cannot produce evidence for whatever reason should not charge a citizen, unless you believe in holding people incommunicado.
I ask again, why are you so keen on trying to prove his guilt?
Galloway did the opposite of skirting the issue, he took the inquisition head-on and left them red-faced. Hooray for due process I say, let's have some eh?

That is what we in the industry call PWN'D!

I found a link to the video.
Mr. Galloway admits at the hearing that he doesn't know if the documents are forgeries.
Senator Levine, an opponent of the Iraq war grilled him on it, and he was forced to admit he didn't know if they were forged or not.

Either they are forged or they are not. There is no such thing as "they might be".

'Governments retain secret evidence privileges for national security reasons.

Nor am I defaming Galloway. Attempting to prove one guilty is not defamation.
The idea that you would resort to such a charge is ludicrus.
The fact is that Galloway continues to skirt the issue.'

Any government that cannot produce evidence for whatever reason should not charge a citizen, unless you believe in holding people incommunicado.
I ask again, why are you so keen on trying to prove his guilt?
Galloway did the opposite of skirting the issue, he took the inquisition head-on and left them red-faced. Hooray for due process I say, let's have some eh?
There are valid national reasons for not disclosing the evidence to joe smoe on the street who might very end up being an agent of Al Qaeda or a spy for a hostile regime.
He skirted the issue. He sweated. And he admitted, under questioning, that he didn't know if the documents were forgeries. Documents which, during his opening statement and in numerous press releases he insisted were false.
If he is so convinced of it, why did he waiver when the documents were placed in front of him?

Mr. Galloway goes off on his charade accusing Levine of supporting the Iraq invasion. The fact is that Senator Levine's vote against the invasion is on the Congressional record.

Miriam's Appeal is a charity yes?
Then you can't compare the fund raising for it with fund raising for political campaigns.
Charity's everywhere have a universal obligation to check on the sources of the donations they recieve.

Having seen the whole video now, I will say that Mr. Galloway has made several statements before the committee that are suspect and that he did indeed skirt the issue.
A Senate hearing into the oil for food program is not a platform for anyone to voice their opposition to Bush or the Iraq invasion which are seperate issues.

Does it surprise anyone that the "LIBRUL MEDIA" doesnt report on this?

I don't know enough about the oil for food issue to say who's guilty and who isn't. But even if he is guilty himself it's about time *someone* stood up and demanded that the US government explain itself. It's just too bad that it had to come from someone who doesn't even live here.

I found a link to the video.

If its a full video, can you post the link please?

Apparently your are right since both US liberals and conservatives are calling him a liar.

And when was he tried? Your source? A link?

How about you stop posting about something you have made it blatantly obvious you know little or nothing about.

The senate's strongest piece of evidence against Galloway is a photocopy of a document with Galloway's name on the bottom of a list of people who were given oil rights. It has already been shown that his name is typed in a different typeface and at a different angle to the type on the rest of the page.

Galloway has already taken 1 newspaper to court over these claims and won. Unlike the US senate, the newspaper had to reveal its sources. His bank accounts have already been checked. The senate committee has made a massive mistake in trying to take on George Galloway who has shown again and again that he is a man of integrity.

How about you stop posting about something you have made it blatantly obvious you know little or nothing about.

The senate's strongest piece of evidence against Galloway is a photocopy of a document with Galloway's name on the bottom of a list of people who were given oil rights. It has already been shown that his name is typed in a different typeface and at a different angle to the type on the rest of the page.

Galloway has already taken 1 newspaper to court over these claims and won. Unlike the US senate, the newspaper had to reveal its sources. His bank accounts have already been checked. The senate committee has made a massive mistake in trying to take on George Galloway who has shown again and again that he is a man of integrity.
Whether he has integrity is for the US Congress to decide.

There is no "the document might be fake". Either it is or it isn't.
The fact is he said the document was fake. Then he changed his mind and said "I don't know if this document is fake". If he never did the stuff he claims he didn't do then he would know if the document, whether a photocopy or an original, was fake.

Either it is or it isn't. I rest my case on that.

There is a gaping hole in your logic.

I have a document here that says George Bush wears a bra. Is it fake? Hell no, the document is right here in my hand, I wrote it myself just 10 minutes ago. It doesn't make the information on it any more true though.

That's odd Whittier, your post there appeared under a completely different name for a few minutes.

If its a full video, can you post the link please?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/nb_wm_fs.stm?checkedBandwidth=nb&nbram=1&checkedMedia=asx&news=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1

There is a gaping hole in your logic.

I have a document here that says George Bush wears a bra. Is it fake? Hell no, the document is right here in my hand, I wrote it myself just 10 minutes ago. It doesn't make the information on it any more true though.

That's odd Whittier, your post there appeared under a completely different name for a few minutes.
The issue as Mr. Galloway framed it was that the document itself was a forgery.
Whether the information on it is true, can be determined by dating the document itself to see how old it is.

A document that goes back to say 93 and inculcates him, is unlikely to be a forgery. But if it dates to after the Iraq invasion I will concede the point.

There is a gaping hole in your logic.

I have a document here that says George Bush wears a bra. Is it fake? Hell no, the document is right here in my hand, I wrote it myself just 10 minutes ago. It doesn't make the information on it any more true though.

That's odd Whittier, your post there appeared under a completely different name for a few minutes.
I logged into the wrong account.

A piece of paper with a name on it means nothing when the allegation is that he profited from the sales of 20 million barrels of oil. If this oil was really sold surely there would be some direct evidence of the sale. You don't just go into a bar and say "Anyone want to buy 20 million barrels of oil?". You need brokers, you need a customer, you need transport, you need documents, you need bankers and in the end you need to deal with $1 billion dollars.

Where are all these people, where are all the documents, where is the oil and where is the money?

A piece of paper with a name on it means nothing when the allegation is that he profited from the sales of 20 million barrels of oil. If this oil was really sold surely there would be some direct evidence of the sale. You don't just go into a bar and say "Anyone want to buy 20 million barrels of oil?". You need brokers, you need a customer, you need transport, you need documents, you need bankers and in the end you need to deal with $1 billion dollars.

Where are all these people, where are all the documents, where is the oil and where is the money?
But you were saying that the documents were forgeries. If that is the case, then even if you admit they exist you would still ignore them.
As for the customer, they can find out from that US oil company who it was they bought the oil from.
Further, 1 billion dollars is quite easy to hide via money laundering.

No, I'm saying the one document that has been shown to exist is a photocopy and Galloway's name appears to have been added at a later date. If the senate wants to run a kangaroo court where they condemn someone without revealing their evidence then it is up to the rest of the world to judge that committee, and the rest of the world is pouring scorn on it.

This committee is the sort of thing the soviets would have set up - no evidence released and testimony from secret witnesses. Either that or it's like a witch burning trial from america's history where those accused testify against others to lessen their punishment. America learnt nothing from that during the McCarthy era and have shown now that they learnt nothing from the McCarthy era either.

If you want to fight for democracy and freedom from tyranny then trying a man in absentia with secret evidence is not the sort of freedom and democracy you should be practicing.

Galloway is an oik, but he's clearly a far cleverer oik than those on the committee were expecting. I loathe the man, but I have to admire how he managed to turn a Senate Committee meeting on his alleged corruption into a damning assault on the US government. That was always his plan. He has a tremendous ego, and speaking to the whole US people was far too much for him to resist. He is a demagogue with a massive gift for oratory. But he's still an oik.

I think that Galloway is treading a fine line in what he seems to have done originally. What is clear is that one of his mates (and I think he admitted this yesterday), took oil from Saddam, and channelled the cash into the Mariam appeal, run by Galloway, which was working against sanctions. Fishy. It stinks, in fact. Yet that was never really followed through, as far as I can tell.

I don't think he's turning attention from the UN corruption, in fact he's highlighting how the US has screwed up more than any other nation in regards to Iraqi management.


Yes, but he was just highlighting how he was affected by the Senate's version of justice and comparing it with his version to US administrations version

I think we can agree that he has gift for egotism and for oratory.

The Guardian is not a neutral source. We know it is run by anti american liberals.so they must be Lying...

just like this guys

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/18/news/probe.php

so they must be Lying...

just like this guys

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/18/news/probe.php
he wasn't credible. All he did was show he had a big ego.

The fact is, instead addressing his own culpability, he monologued about his opposition to war and any goes to war for any reason was evil.

And that media outlet leaves out the responses from the Senators. Contrary to what those liberal anti bush establishments are saying, the Senate was not taken off guard.

As I said earlier, Mr. Galloway is nothing more than an egotistical gadfly.

I didn't think he was credible. He was very, very clever not to answer any questions.

FACT 1 - Galloway cannot answer a question about whether documents are fake or not when he has only just seen them.

FACT 2 - Galloway has already faced these allegations down in a British court of law. As a British subject having faced these allegations in a British court, he shouldn't even be before a US senate committee. Any evidence the US government has should be handed over to the British government and scrutinized by the Crown Prosecution Service to see if there is a case to answer.

FACT 3 - Galloway was indeed an opponent of Saddam Hussein long before George Bush came to power, and was a prominent player in calling for the prosecution of Churchill-Matrix, a British arms company who broke sanctions with the alleged connivance of John Major's conservative government.

FACT 4 - If Galloway had indeed made millions of dollars, why did he put himself through the ordeal of running for parliament practically single handed just 2 weeks ago? Why is he not sunning himslef on a non-extraditionary beach somewhere?

Personnally, I think that Galloway is a despicable little egotist, and I think the Senate Committee have made a grave mistake giving him an audience. But guilty? I think not. The man is far to idealogically driven by his socialist ideals.

There were some softballs that Levin tossed to him that were related to his association with another businessman who funneled money through his charity and who is certainly involved in the oil for food scandal.

The charity, not Galloway, was the recipient of the money. It is TRUE that Galloway received no money - however it is TRUE that his charity most certainly did.

The Jordanian businessman freely admits this. Why would Galloway evade those questions?

Yes, he's a Socialist - who wanted the money to go to this charity.

My main point is that he shouldn't even be there. Any allegations of wrong doing against a BRITISH subject should be aired in a BRITISH court.

PS - I know he went there voluntarily, whioch goes to show a- just what a bighead he really is and b- that he just might have nothing to hide. Incidentally, would it be possible for this committee to force a foreign citizen to testify?

My main point is that he shouldn't even be there. Any allegations of wrong doing against a BRITISH subject should be aired in a BRITISH court.

PS - I know he went there voluntarily, whioch goes to show a- just what a bighead he really is and b- that he just might have nothing to hide. Incidentally, would it be possible for this committee to force a foreign citizen to testify?

No, they can't force him. And he's not on trial, if you'll notice.

He went for his own PR loudmouth stupid reasons, and they called him there for their own PR loudmouth stupid reasons.

Everyone came away happy, with the soundbites to play to their own constituencies.

A rare day on the Hill, when Democrats, Republicans, and a foreign politician can all come away happy with their sound bites.

The rule of law has goe out of fasion recently in the UK and US. I have to say I'm impressed by his nerve if nothing else.

Whittier, the Guardian is a centre or very slightly left-wing newspaper by UK standards, it's as balanced as any newspaper gets. Maybe to you it is a commie rag but to me Fox is a laughably biased right-wing 'service'.

.. I'm impressed by his nerve if nothing else...he was awesome...and he kicked the bushite Senators colective asses :D

he was awesome...and he kicked the bushite Senators colective asses :D


Whoo...thats what you call an ass kicking?

Whoo...thats what you call an ass kicking?
Good thing he wasn't on a real witness stand in court - you can't go through that much questioning and never answer a question. Not only will the judge set you straight, but you would not impress the jury.

I'm convinced that he didn't take money for his personal enrichment - which is all that was proven in the libel case in the UK. But it's fairly clear that he did business with a man who helped enrich Galloway's charity using oil for food money.

Noticeably, he won't answer questions about that businessman, or that relationship, directly. Very, very evasive.

Whoo...thats what you call an ass kicking?Yes.

got any more easy questions? :D

heh yeah it was kuhl to see him go off on them.

but now with the spankign comes the whining as seen in this thread and 31's other thread which is supposedly an attempt at humor.

heh yeah it was kuhl to see him go off on them.

but now with the spankign comes the whining as seen in this thread and 31's other thread which is supposedly an attempt at humor.

I'm not whining. I saw all of his "testimony" and in no way did I see anything he said as an answer to anything he was asked.

It was a room full of hot air. I sincerely doubt that the majority of Americans would find his "testimony" anything but evasive and offensive.

Well, that's the truth for you. He has proven his innocence in open court and is now being given a free stage to tell the truth to the US. He must have cum when he got told about this.

Yes.

got any more easy questions? :D


Nope. Just glad you're so easily impressed.

Well, that's the truth for you. He has proven his innocence in open court and is now being given a free stage to tell the truth to the US. He must have cum when he got told about this.
If you note carefully, his "innocence" is that "he" didn't get any oil money.

However, his charity did. And his charity was never proven innocent.

And the Jordanian businessman who funneled the money through the charity ADMITTED it (even though he's never been arrested or charged).

And the Iraqi officials ADMITTED it.

And Galloway was very, very evasive when asked to explain this directly - Senator Levin gave up saying that Galloway obviously was not going to answer any questions directly - perhaps not answer at all.

sure sounds like it - despite his anti-war rhetoric, instead of hearing him deny the accusations that were made you merely focus on the answers he gave where he changed the subject. Whoopity doo - he wanted to bitch them out and took his chance when he had it. Good for him I would ahve done the same.

Galloway vehemently denied ever receiving oil kickbacks from Saddam's regime.

"I am not now, nor have I ever been an oil trader," Galloway told the panel, calling the charges against him "utterly unsubstantiated and false".

thats called denying the charges (I don't see how addressing the accusations can be shown that he didnt asner a single question) - if they could have proven him wrong they would ahve done so, but did they? Nope. The "proof" they had was about as valid as Dan Rathers damning document against Bush.

The "proof" they had was about as valid as Dan Rathers damning document against Bush.

I find the testimony by the Jordanian businessman to be damning. And Galloway did not deny that relationship, or that money transfer between that businessman and Galloway's charity.

So he didn't deny it.

heh yeah it was kuhl to see him go off on them..YEAH...I want more...

I want more !!!

I m going to write my Congressman...to see if we can acuse him of buying northkorean oil or something...

hell I am ready to forge the papers myself If I have too...

lest go round 2...

Would you rather money went to charity or to line some fat businessman's pockets. George Galoway has not handled the money, it has not been used for his own gain.

Do politicians take account of where their campaign cash comes from?

Would you rather money went to charity or to line some fat businessman's pockets. George Galoway has not handled the money, it has not been used for his own gain.

Do politicians take account of where their campaign cash comes from?

The money, I may point out, was not supposed to go to a Jordanian businessman, nor was it supposed to go to George Galloway's charity.

It was supposed to go to the Iraqi people, under the UN Oil for Food Program.

Or have you forgotten?

Anything else - even through another charity - is a crime against humanity.

It is such a crime if people accuse the US of starving Iraqis through a UN program - a program which appears to have starved people only because the funds were diverted wholesale - by parties other than the US government.

There are Americans currently who will go to jail for doing that. Some who are in court now.

Galloway is lucky that he is not under indictment here in the US. Otherwise, there seems to be sufficient information on his charity (and not on his personal monetary accounts) to get him a long cool stay at a Federal correction facility.

... there seems to be sufficient information on his charity (and not on his personal monetary accounts) to get him a long cool stay at a Federal correction facility.then I guess the question is:

why dont they make a formal acusation? :confused: :confused:

Since the US government ignored the system in the US (52% of the whole thing) the government should deal with it's own corruption. Oil-for-fod was flawed to start with, give a dictator a source of oney and they will ignore the rules the moment you don't enforce them. At least the charity put it into Iraq rather than kept it out.

We should just detain him and ship him off to Guantanamo Bay. Guilty until proven guilty.

Now I know you are a troll. Or an idiot. Even posting that ironically is pretty stupid.

then I guess the question is:

why dont they make a formal acusation? :confused: :confused:

You'll notice that we're charging only Americans at this point.

Even if you have evidence, you don't necessarily go around charging the government representatives of other nations. Not a good idea.

This was probably about as formal an accusation as it gets - and you'll notice that he didn't defend his charity's involvement.

And no, we're not ignoring the Americans' role in this. But unlike other countries, our government officials were not involved in the scandal. Just businessmen. So far, we don't have any Senators or Congressmen who were involved.

I also found his assertion that we sold Iraq "guns" to be faintly ridiculous.

While we might have given him aid in the past, our country does not produce or supply AKM rifles, or PK machineguns, or any South African artillery pieces, or French Crotale missile systems, or any of the Russian SA-8 and SA-6 and SA-2 missile systems, and none of the armored vehicles - in fact, NOTHING in service in the Iraqi Army, Air Force, or Navy from the date that Saddam took power to the time he was deposed.

I wonder what "guns" he was talking about.

Guns as in weapons.

And I KNOW that the US have sold him plenty of Chemical weapons. Aren't they worse than guns anyhow?

Even if you have evidence, you don't necessarily go around charging the government representatives of other nations. Not a good idea.I would say Saddam Hussein was a government representative of another nation...

Now I know you are a troll. Or an idiot. Even posting that ironically is pretty stupid.


Thats your small opinion. Its on par with the desire to forge documents & North Korean oil. But since it jibe with your views, you find it necessary to stoop to name calling. Its your way or no way, huh?

I would say Saddam Hussein was a government representative of another nation...

You generally have to conquer their nation in order to get them extradited. Or pummel them with bombs.

You know, like Milosevic, or Saddam.

I would bet that you can't find a Kurd or Shiite who isn't glad that Saddam is out of power. Probably a fair number of Sunnis in Iraq - but no one else.

If you're counting, that's a majority of Iraqis that are pleased by the idea that he's gone.

Thats your small opinion. Its on par with the desire to forge documents & North Korean oil. But since it jibe with your views, you find it necessary to stoop to name calling. Its your way or no way, huh?


:rolleyes:

.

If you're counting, that's a majority of Iraqis that are pleased by the idea that he's gone.
yeah, but they sure as sh*t ain't pleased that the US is STILL there!
'Terrorists'/ Saddam loyalists my ass, guerrilla fighters more like it.

What'll you do when the country heads to theocracy? Invade it again?

We should just detain him and ship him off to Guantanamo Bay. Guilty until proven guilty.

Stop trolling and lets get back to sensible debate

You generally have to conquer their nation in order to get them extradited. Or pummel them with bombs.Or sign extradition treaties...

either way you dont need to Extradite Galloway...he will gladly come to smack the Bushites, every time you give him the chance to take the stand.

Or sign extradition treaties...

either way you dont need to Extradite Galloway...he will gladly come to smack the Bushites, every time you give him the chance to take the stand.

Considering his evasions, I doubt he would involve himself in a criminal court, as they would put a gag order on the proceedings. Lacking publicity, I'm sure he would not find it interesting to get nailed and spend 10 years at a Federal penitentiary.

Just got off the tube with Mr. Galloway in my carriage!! I gave plenty of evil glares because he's a stupid Saddam-sympathising bastard, but I was pleased to see a Brit show the Americans how politics REALLY works!

Thats your small opinion. Its on par with the desire to forge documents & North Korean oil. But since it jibe with your views, you find it necessary to stoop to name calling. Its your way or no way, huh?hahaha...

that so fucked up man...

Considering his evasions, I doubt he would involve himself in a criminal court....it doesnt work that way...individuals do not get to choose if they wanna be involved with a criminal court...

picture this: AlCapone gets a letter from the USGov asking him "Mr Capone would you care to get involved with our criminal court...?"

Just got off the tube with Mr. Galloway in my carriage!! I gave plenty of evil glares because he's a stupid Saddam-sympathising bastard, but I was pleased to see a Brit show the Americans how politics REALLY works!

Couldn't agree more. This was a great example of the different ways in which US and British legislators work. As I understand it (and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) debates within Congress tend to be mostly polite and stick to the subject at hand. If any Americans out there have ever witnessed a debate within the House of Commons or any Parliamentary committee you will understand exaclty why George Galloway behaved the way he did. British politicians have no qualms about name calling of any sort - the classic example was when Thatcher referred to Neil Kinnock as "Crypto-communist" in the House. They also delight in scoring points off each other during a debate, even if thjis is done in a wildly off topic manner. I find this makes for much more interesting and colourful political exchanges, allowing all sorts of topics and views to be brought to the publics attention. What we saw in the Senate Committee would be an average day in the House of Commons.

Considering his evasions, I doubt he would involve himself in a criminal court, as they would put a gag order on the proceedings. Lacking publicity, I'm sure he would not find it interesting to get nailed and spend 10 years at a Federal penitentiary.

Under what charge? As far as I am aware, Galloway has broken no US laws or been accused of breaking any US laws - as many of you Americans tell us Europeans over and over again, UN law has absolutely no status in the United States. And I do believe that sanction busting, corruption of a UN programme or whatever you want to call it would fall under UN juristiction. No way would he ever end up in a federal penitentiary.

And good luck trying to get him in front of the ICC, you guys didn't even sign up :D

Ouch.

Typical British politics- try and make the opposition look as idiotic as possible, whilst preaching yourself to the heavens.

He may be innocent. He may be right. That doesn't make him, or any other politician in this country any less petty.

New Labour won the elections solely because they were the only party on offer that didn't look as if it'd ball things up completely. British Politics is an almighty international joke.

The bureaucracy- sweet lord the bureaucracy. And the idiots in charge.

I'm beginning to see why America elected Bush. He may be the laughing stock of the world, but at least he's getting stuff done.

Ouch.

Typical British politics- try and make the opposition look as idiotic as possible, whilst preaching yourself to the heavens.

He may be innocent. He may be right. That doesn't make him, or any other politician in this country any less petty.

New Labour won the elections solely because they were the only party on offer that didn't look as if it'd ball things up completely. British Politics is an almighty international joke.

I think your wrong there. British politics isn't perfect, but an international joke? Compared to say, the Italians, our politicians are positively saints and genius.

Would you rather money went to charity or to line some fat businessman's pockets. George Galoway has not handled the money, it has not been used for his own gain.

Do politicians take account of where their campaign cash comes from?
In the United States of America, we have this little thing called Campaign Finance Law.

A politician in the states is responsible for the source of his funds.
For example, if the person making the donation, got the money through illegal means, then the campaign is under obligation to return the money or refuse it altogether.

Another thing about US elections is that even without that law in place, the voters would still hold the candidate responsible when it came to light. Even those already in office are not immune.

Indeed, we've had a couple of American politicians, throughout recent US history, who were removed from office for accepting money from, shall we say, unsavory sources. Some of them have even gone to jail for it.

Now if they allow pols in the UK to accept donations from criminals or from people who got it illegally, then the UK must not have good election laws.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4569056


After some 45 minutes of testimony, Mr Galloway’s time was up. Outside in the corridor small beads of sweat were apparent on his forehead perhaps an indication that things had not been as easy as he implied.


Why would he be sweating in front of the committee if he really believed he was innocent?

Hmm - "small beads of sweat" after 45 minutes of intense interrogation are apparently a sign of certain guilt, but when Blair sweats buckets after 10 minutes of questions from an audience made from members of the public...hey, leave the guy alone!

In the United States of America, we have this little thing called Campaign Finance Law.

A politician in the states is responsible for the source of his funds.
For example, if the person making the donation, got the money through illegal means, then the campaign is under obligation to return the money or refuse it altogether.

Another thing about US elections is that even without that law in place, the voters would still hold the candidate responsible when it came to light. Even those already in office are not immune.

Indeed, we've had a couple of American politicians, throughout recent US history, who were removed from office for accepting money from, shall we say, unsavory sources. Some of them have even gone to jail for it.

Now if they allow pols in the UK to accept donations from criminals or from people who got it illegally, then the UK must not have good election laws.

Firstly, the committee han't proved that the money went directly to Galloway, let alone was used as election funds. They CLAIM to have proved that oil funds went to the charity he set up, but won't tell us the sources thanks to reasons of "national security". How convenient.

Secondly, our election finance laws are far stricter than in the US. All election spending must be accounted for and published, all party donors giving over £1,000 must have their names disclosed to the public, and, most importantly, candidates are only allowed to spend a certain amount of their own money on election funds (I can't recall the figure but it is quite low, a few thousand £ I think). As a result we certainly have a hell of a lot less millionnaires and vested interests in Parliament than there are in Congress.

Whether he has integrity is for the US Congress to decide..


Hahaha, you're kidding right? First of all he's not an American citizen. Second of all since when does the US speak for all of the UN? It doesn't. It's pretty funny how we take this stand with trying to try and convict an innocent man here in the States, meanwhile we won't even be held to the same standard by joining the ICC. Can we safely say that the US government is the real joke in all this and the one's who lied their asses off and are at the most fault for the entire situation in the first place!

Hmm - "small beads of sweat" after 45 minutes of intense interrogation are apparently a sign of certain guilt, but when Blair sweats buckets after 10 minutes of questions from an audience made from members of the public...hey, leave the guy alone!
maybe Mr. Blair got something to hide.

After reading many, many of these posts I have bravely (heh heh, bravely is an under-used word) come to the conclusion that. . .

if you were against the war you believe Galloway did a great job, is innocent and spanked the US congressmen.
if you a supporter of the war you think Galloway is a lying sack and he avoided the issue and shifted blame.

hmm. . . seems the only place to be reached is nowhere. The only thing to be gained is nothing.

Firstly, the committee han't proved that the money went directly to Galloway, let alone was used as election funds. They CLAIM to have proved that oil funds went to the charity he set up, but won't tell us the sources thanks to reasons of "national security". How convenient.

Secondly, our election finance laws are far stricter than in the US. All election spending must be accounted for and published, all party donors giving over £1,000 must have their names disclosed to the public, and, most importantly, candidates are only allowed to spend a certain amount of their own money on election funds (I can't recall the figure but it is quite low, a few thousand £ I think). As a result we certainly have a hell of a lot less millionnaires and vested interests in Parliament than there are in Congress.

1. You misunderstand what I was happening. I was saying that for his charity to accept the money is the same as him accepting it whether for himself or for his campaign.

2. US campaign laws are the same. Except for the part bout not being allowed to spend their own money. But that's due to cultural differences. People over here don't want public money spent on people's personal political campaigns for office. It's kind of considered corrupt to use public funds for one's own self promotion. So people over here have to use their own money or rely on the charity of others. The downside to not having publicly funded campaigns is that it makes all politicians beholden to corporations, extremist unions, religious fanatics, and everyone else that bankrupts their campaigns. Remember that group, Move On.org? Remember how they said that since they had donated to the Democratic party that means they literally owned the party and its members?
That's the way it works over here. Its not in stone but its cultural and the American people expect it so they get it.

Hahaha, you're kidding right? First of all he's not an American citizen. Second of all since when does the US speak for all of the UN? It doesn't. It's pretty funny how we take this stand with trying to try and convict an innocent man here in the States, meanwhile we won't even be held to the same standard by joining the ICC. Can we safely say that the US government is the real joke in all this and the one's who lied their asses off and are at the most fault for the entire situation in the first place!
The ones at fault, are the people, like Mr. Galloway, who tried to help Saddam stay in power by opposing our efforts to free the people of Iraq.
The fact is that while Saddam was torturing women and children, the so called peace movement, with its leaders, turned a blind eye to it while attacking and condemning US plans to bring Saddam to justice and bring freedom to the Iraqi people.

After reading many, many of these posts I have bravely (heh heh, bravely is an under-used word) come to the conclusion that. . .

if you were against the war you believe Galloway did a great job, is innocent and spanked the US congressmen.
if you a supporter of the war you think Galloway is a lying sack and he avoided the issue and shifted blame.

hmm. . . seems the only place to be reached is nowhere. The only thing to be gained is nothing.
I must say. I think you have a point.

After reading many, many of these posts I have bravely (heh heh, bravely is an under-used word) come to the conclusion that. . .

if you were against the war you believe Galloway did a great job, is innocent and spanked the US congressmen.
if you a supporter of the war you think Galloway is a lying sack and he avoided the issue and shifted blame.

hmm. . . seems the only place to be reached is nowhere. The only thing to be gained is nothing.

I almost agree. I think the people here determined to 'find' Galloway innocent simply didn't like the way a good parliamentarian trashed the pompous American inquisition. As has already been said, British politicians can tongue-lash American ones anytime.

1. You misunderstand what I was happening. I was saying that for his charity to accept the money is the same as him accepting it whether for himself or for his campaign.


What campaign? You DO realise that it had nothing to do with his parliamentary elections- it was allegedly years before now.

As for the money in campaigns- over here (well not in Britain, i'm not British) the political parties are all given equal sums of money to make sure everything is fair- again personal donations HAVE to be declared publicly- more than €500 i think.

I almost agree. I think the people here determined to 'find' Galloway innocent simply didn't like the way a good parliamentarian trashed the pompous American inquisition. As has already been said, British politicians can tongue-lash American ones anytime.

More practice. God watching broadcasts of the UK Parliament is fun.

The ones at fault, are the people, like Mr. Galloway, who tried to help Saddam stay in power by opposing our efforts to free the people of Iraq.
The fact is that while Saddam was torturing women and children, the so called peace movement, with its leaders, turned a blind eye to it while attacking and condemning US plans to bring Saddam to justice and bring freedom to the Iraqi people.

You don't read other peoples posts nor the links given. Galloway was vehemently against Sadaam long before he became Senor Brush's favourite hate figure.

I almost agree. I think the people here determined to 'find' Galloway innocent simply didn't like the way a good parliamentarian trashed the pompous American inquisition. As has already been said, British politicians can tongue-lash American ones anytime.
That's because a few British politicians have filthy manners, no morals, and lack integrity.

That's because a few British politicians have filthy manners, no morals, and lack integrity.

And your comments display clearly why most people have little respect for American views. Just wishing something ain't true don't make it so.

You don't read other peoples posts nor the links given. Galloway was vehemently against Sadaam long before he became Senor Brush's favourite hate figure.
That's why he didn't call for Saddam to step down? That's why he never called on Saddam to stop skirting sanctions? That's why he did a lot of business with the Iraqi government? With opposition like that, who needs supporters?

What campaign? You DO realise that it had nothing to do with his parliamentary elections- it was allegedly years before now.

As for the money in campaigns- over here (well not in Britain, i'm not British) the political parties are all given equal sums of money to make sure everything is fair- again personal donations HAVE to be declared publicly- more than €500 i think.
Listen to what I am saying. I did not say it was related to the campaign.
I said it was equivalent. It is immoral and (in the states) illegal for charity to accept money from people who got it through illegal means. If it ain't illegal in Britain, it ought to be.

That's why he didn't call for Saddam to step down? That's why he never called on Saddam to stop skirting sanctions? That's why he did a lot of business with the Iraqi government? With opposition like that, who needs supporters?

Read up about Galloways past and then come back. Maybe you won't look so foolish and descend into frustrated insults.

And your comments display clearly why most people have little respect for American views. Just wishing something ain't true don't make it so.
Well you yourself said they had no manners. Actually you kind of boasted about it like its something good that the people who represent you should be boisterous, obnoxious and inflammatory.

Listen to what I am saying. I did not say it was related to the campaign.
I said it was equivalent. It is immoral and (in the states) illegal for charity to accept money from people who got it through illegal means. If it ain't illegal in Britain, it ought to be.

Of course it's illegal here. Please read up on the topics you want to talk about. Your posts are all simple anti-British / European, you will not, can not accept facts presented.

Well you yourself said they had no manners. Actually you kind of boasted about it like its something good that the people who represent you should be boisterous, obnoxious and inflammatory.

Nope. Someone else. Try again.

Read up about Galloways past and then come back. Maybe you won't look so foolish and descend into frustrated insults.
Do you oppose democracy for the Iraqi people?

Do you oppose democracy for the Iraqi people?

No.

Next.

Of course it's illegal here. Please read up on the topics you want to talk about. Your posts are all simple anti-British / European, you will not, can not accept facts presented.
If they were anti british as you say, I would have said "all british politicians", not "a few british politicians." One thing the Brits did right was keeping Blair in office.

Listen to what I am saying. I did not say it was related to the campaign.
I said it was equivalent. It is immoral and (in the states) illegal for charity to accept money from people who got it through illegal means. If it ain't illegal in Britain, it ought to be.

How do you know it was through illegal means? No evidence has been shown to support such a claim- and he didn't ask what part of the Jordanians multi-billion dollar business empire the exact cash came from. There's nothing immoral about what he did- he didn't know whether the guy DID or DID NOT have links to the OFF program. That also has not been proven.

Seriously, read Galloways history over the past 15 years. You'll be surprised.

No.
Do you oppose the bringing Saddam to justice, whatever means are necessary?

If they were anti british as you say, I would have said "all british politicians", not "a few british politicians." One thing the Brits did right was keeping Blair in office.

Do you suppose we have more corrupt politicians than you? If not, your comment was facile.

How do you know it was through illegal means? No evidence has been shown to support such a claim- and he didn't ask what part of the Jordanians multi-billion dollar business empire the exact cash came from. There's nothing immoral about what he did- he didn't know whether the guy DID or DID NOT have links to the OFF program. That also has not been proven.

Seriously, read Galloways history over the past 15 years. You'll be surprised.
You are simply proving him guilty of failing to accept his responsibility for checking up on his donors.

Do you the bringing Saddam to justice, whatever means are necessary?

If you're asking should Sadaam stand trial for his human attrocities, yes.
I never believe in using whatever means are necessary though. Killing 100,000 people to get at one is immoral and wasteful.

Do you suppose we have more corrupt politicians than you? If not, your comment was facile.
I just think your antibush leftists are corrupt.

You are simply proving him guilty of failing to accept his responsibility for checking up on his donors.

Why don't you accept that good advice? You're so keen on finding Galloway guilty, read up on him. Just google his name and read his history.

I just think your antibush leftists are corrupt.

Is it the leftist bit or the anti-Bush you think corrupt? How much do you understand about British Politics?

If you're asking should Sadaam stand trial for his human attrocities, yes.
I never believe in using whatever means are necessary though. Killing 100,000 people to get at one is immoral and wasteful.
100,000? I thought the figures were more like 1,600. Must be the "new math".
So you wouldn't do it even though you knew the guy was torturing women and children and paying suicide bombers to kill jews (whereby destabilizing relations between Israel and the rest of the arab world)?

Is it the leftist bit or the anti-Bush you think corrupt? How much do you understand about British Politics?
I think leftists everywhere are corrupt.

Why don't you accept that good advice? You're so keen on finding Galloway guilty, read up on him. Just google his name and read his history.
Actually I googled yesterday, all I found was his comments in front of the Senate. Took up like 20 of the search pages. I gave up after page 20.

Do you oppose the bringing Saddam to justice, whatever means are necessary?
Actually yes i do.

No, seriously. Iraqi sovereignty was violated by the US/UK forces. Doesn't matter that you dissagreed with him- there was no justification for invading a sovereign state.

100,000? I thought the figures were more like 1,600. Must be the "new math".
So you wouldn't do it even though you knew the guy was torturing women and children and paying suicide bombers to kill jews (whereby destabilizing relations between Israel and the rest of the arab world)?

Why are you so Americo-centric? 1600 Americans maybe, 100.000 Iraqis. You remember Iraq, that place over there, and the people that were killed en masse were Iraqis.

I wouldn't do what Bush and Blair did. I would listen to the poor sods that put me in power. If you think 100.000 men, women and children were worth killing, then the majority of Iraqis will disagree with you.

I think leftists everywhere are corrupt.

Well then how can you have an open debate with anyone of the 'left'? All leftists corrupt eh? Sorry, I thought I was talking to an adult.

I think leftists everywhere are corrupt.
Troll.

Actually yes i do.

No, seriously. Iraqi sovereignty was violated by the US/UK forces. Doesn't matter that you dissagreed with him- there was no justification for invading a sovereign state.
But it was ok for him to violate the soveignty of Iran, Kuwait, and Israel?
Up to the minute the war broke out, Saddam Hussien was engaged in the illegal violation Israeli soveringty. How? By recruiting and paying suicide bombers to kill people in Israeli territory just because they were Israelis.

Actually I googled yesterday, all I found was his comments in front of the Senate. Took up like 20 of the search pages. I gave up after page 20.

See, people like Galloway don't give up so easily. Nor do I. Any subject I'm interested in and want to talk about, I study before I open my mouth. Those Senators would have been well advised to learn a bit about Galloway before they took him on.

Why are you so Americo-centric? 1600 Americans maybe, 100.000 Iraqis. You remember Iraq, that place over there, and the people that were killed en masse were Iraqis.

I wouldn't do what Bush and Blair did. I would listen to the poor sods that put me in power. If you think 100.000 men, women and children were worth killing, then the majority of Iraqis will disagree with you.
I am calling you on your figure. The civilian casualty count has in no way reached even 50,000.

Well then how can you have an open debate with anyone of the 'left'? All leftists corrupt eh? Sorry, I thought I was talking to an adult.
You do know the difference between expressing opinion and expressing fact, right? :rolleyes:

But it was ok for him to violate the soveignty of Iran, Kuwait, and Israel?
Up to the minute the war broke out, Saddam Hussien was engaged in the illegal violation Israeli soveringty. How? By recruiting and paying suicide bombers to kill people in Israeli territory just because they were Israelis.

Wrong. The US / UK attacked Sadaam once before when he invaded Kuwait.
I know evidence isn't your strong point but Sadaam never paid anyone to attack Israel. What he did do was to financially support the families of the suicide bombers. I find that obnoxious but he did nothing illegal, no more than the CIA has done accross South America and in Arab states.

But it was ok for him to violate the soveignty of Iran, Kuwait, and Israel?
Up to the minute the war broke out, Saddam Hussien was engaged in the illegal violation Israeli soveringty. How? By recruiting and paying suicide bombers to kill people in Israeli territory just because they were Israelis.
Well Iran Kuwait and Israel should have attack him then, not the US or the UK.

And anyway, none of them were being attacked by Saddam immedietly prior to the Gulf War II.

as for 'recruiting' suidice bombers, they don't need to be recruited. They are queueing up to die- as would you if your people were being ground into the dust.

'If youre not prepare to die for it, remove freedom from your vocabulary' An American

See, people like Galloway don't give up so easily. Nor do I. Any subject I'm interested in and want to talk about, I study before I open my mouth. Those Senators would have been well advised to learn a bit about Galloway before they took him on.
From what I've been reading, as someone else stated earlier, it all depends on your stance on the war. If you oppose it, then Galloway is a Saint who never ever did anything wrong. If you support the war, then Galloway is a lying scumbag.

I am calling you on your figure. The civilian casualty count has in no way reached even 50,000.


Call what you like. Google the British Medical Association, the worlds most prestigious medical organisation. They reported the 100,000 figure and I believe them over any politician, left or right.

Wrong. The US / UK attacked Sadaam once before when he invaded Kuwait.
I know evidence isn't your strong point but Sadaam never paid anyone to attack Israel. What he did do was to financially support the families of the suicide bombers. I find that obnoxious but he did nothing illegal, no more than the CIA has done accross South America and in Arab states.
Actually what Saddam did, was illegal. And a violation of Israeli sovereingty.
He supported the anti Israel terror groups.
For someone who is supposed to be all for peace like you are supposed to be, I don't see how you can turn a blind eye to that but condemn US violation of Iraq's own soverignty.

As for Desert Storm, the minute Iraq stepped into Kuwait, Iraq gave up its right to soverignty. Hence desert storm was a just war.

From what I've been reading, as someone else stated earlier, it all depends on your stance on the war. If you oppose it, then Galloway is a Saint who never ever did anything wrong. If you support the war, then Galloway is a lying scumbag.


Wrong. I detest Galloways politics but I respect his integrity. And I refuse to judge any man guilty until proven so by a court of law.

Actually what Saddam did, was illegal. And a violation of Israeli sovereingty.
He supported the anti Israel terror groups.
For someone who is supposed to be all for peace like you are supposed to be, I don't see how you can turn a blind eye to that but condemn US violation of Iraq's own soverignty.

As for Desert Storm, the minute Iraq stepped into Kuwait, Iraq gave up its right to soverignty. Hence desert storm was a just war.

He never violated Israeli sovereingty. Never. Never.
He did 'support' the suicide bombers but only in the way I described (and I'm not prepared to repeat myself), it was not illegal. Not illegal. The invasion of Iraq was illegal.

'For someone who is supposed to be all for peace like you are supposed to be, I don't see how you can turn a blind eye to that but condemn US violation of Iraq's own soverignty. '
Who says I'm 'all for peace'? How do you know what I would fight for? Where have I ever said I ignore the butchery of Sadaam? There have been just wars in history, no historian could call this current one (the one that Brush flew onto an aircraft carrier so long ago to decalare over) 'just'.

Well Iran Kuwait and Israel should have attack him then, not the US or the UK.

And anyway, none of them were being attacked by Saddam immedietly prior to the Gulf War II.

as for 'recruiting' suidice bombers, they don't need to be recruited. They are queueing up to die- as would you if your people were being ground into the dust.

'If youre not prepare to die for it, remove freedom from your vocabulary' An American
1980- Iraq invades Iran. Gasses hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilians.
1990- Iraq invades Kuwait. Troops rape and mug Kuwaiti women.
1991-US led coalition goes in and gives Iraq a taste of its own medicine. But unlike Iraq, US forces don't use chemical weapons nor do they go rampages raping and maiming civilians.
199?-Iraq illegally sends troops into Kurdistan in violation of international law, attacking Kurdish groups.
US retaliates with massive airstrikes, to protect the Kurds.
2000 to 2003- Saddam Hussien sponsors terrorism against Israelis on Israeli territory. Thousands of Israelis die as a result of Saddam's violation of Israeli soverignty.
2003- US invades Iraq, catches Saddam. Iraqi supported suicide bombings end, reducing terrorism in Israel by at least 45%.

Actually what Saddam did, was illegal. And a violation of Israeli sovereingty.
He supported the anti Israel terror groups.
For someone who is supposed to be all for peace like you are supposed to be, I don't see how you can turn a blind eye to that but condemn US violation of Iraq's own soverignty.

As for Desert Storm, the minute Iraq stepped into Kuwait, Iraq gave up its right to soverignty. Hence desert storm was a just war.

Again.... Israel should have been the one to attack if they could prove what he was doing... NOT THE US/UK.

Yes you are corrcet- legalistically the Gulf War I WAS just. II was not.

I also dislike Galloway, but i now respect him for speaking what millions around the world have being trying to say for decades.

1980- Iraq invades Iran. Gasses hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilians.
1990- Iraq invades Kuwait. Troops rape and mug Kuwaiti women.
1991-US led coalition goes in and gives Iraq a taste of its own medicine. But unlike Iraq, US forces don't use chemical weapons nor do they go rampages raping and maiming civilians.
199?-Iraq illegally sends troops into Kurdistan in violation of international law, attacking Kurdish groups.
US retaliates with massive airstrikes, to protect the Kurds.
2000 to 2003- Saddam Hussien sponsors terrorism against Israelis on Israeli territory. Thousands of Israelis die as a result of Saddam's violation of Israeli soverignty.
2003- US invades Iraq, catches Saddam. Iraqi supported suicide bombings end, reducing terrorism in Israel by at least 45%.

KURDISTAN!!!!???? Pardon my geography, but such a place does not exist.

Suicide bombings dropping have more to do with renewed peace efforts and the construction of that monstrosity of a 'peace wall', NOT Saddam, sorry.

He never violated Israeli sovereingty. Never. Never.
He did 'support' the suicide bombers but only in the way I described (and I'm not prepared to repeat myself), it was not illegal. Not illegal. The invasion of Iraq was illegal.

'For someone who is supposed to be all for peace like you are supposed to be, I don't see how you can turn a blind eye to that but condemn US violation of Iraq's own soverignty. '
Who says I'm 'all for peace'? How do you know what I would fight for? Where have I ever said I ignore the butchery of Sadaam? There have been just wars in history, no historian could call this current one (the one that Brush flew onto an aircraft carrier so long ago to decalare over) 'just'.
Supporting terrorism in any shape or form, even if its just giving money to the families of suicide bombers, is illegal.
What Russia did in Ukraine by trying to poison that Ukrainian politician, though not an actual invasion, was illegal.
Iran sending people to Britain to kill that Salmon Rushdie fellow, was illegal.
In both cases, though there was no actual invasion, the soverignty of both Urkraine and Britain were illegally violated.
Just as Britain's soverignty was violated by Libya via the Pan Am 103 incident.

Again.... Israel should have been the one to attack if they could prove what he was doing... NOT THE US/UK.

Yes you are corrcet- legalistically the Gulf War I WAS just. II was not.

I also dislike Galloway, but i now respect him for speaking what millions around the world have being trying to say for decades.
The reason they didn't was because the US was holding them check, promising them that the US would take care of Saddam. If Israel retaliated against Iraq on its own, there would have been a huge Isreali/Arab war that would have quickly exploded into the third world war.

KURDISTAN!!!!???? Pardon my geography, but such a place does not exist.

Suicide bombings dropping have more to do with renewed peace efforts and the construction of that monstrosity of a 'peace wall', NOT Saddam, sorry.
The typical palestinian would oppose the wall but not to the point of going around and killing innocent Israeli children who had no means to defend themselves.

BTW, Kurdistan is a region in northern Iraq. In fact it makes up most of Northern Iraq.

The reason they didn't was because the US was holding them check
I know that.

War by proxy is not a justification for a third party to violate state sovereingty.

Terrorism is also not the violation of sov. as it is by independent groups. That is like saying the Spanish govt should launch a military attack on the Basque regional govt because Herri Batisuna is in power there- or Britain should launch a military assault on N.Ireland because Sinn Fein is in power.

State sponsored terrorism is hard to prove- there is no evidence that Saddam PAID families to bomb Israel. What hi DID do was financially renumerate them AFTER the act. Semantics maybe- but an important disctinction.

BTW, 'Kurdistan' does not exist. It is an idea for a nation state that exists in the Kurdish mind- and is very doubtful that it will ever come into existence. The Kurds want part of Iran, Iraq and about 40% of Turkey (the PKK have been waging a war against the Turkish state for a few decades now). The Northern No Fly Zone is the area you are referring to- it is NOT a state called Kurdistan and is not recognised as such by any other state.

1980- Iraq invades Iran. Gasses hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilians.
1990- Iraq invades Kuwait. Troops rape and mug Kuwaiti women.
1991-US led coalition goes in and gives Iraq a taste of its own medicine. But unlike Iraq, US forces don't use chemical weapons nor do they go rampages raping and maiming civilians.
199?-Iraq illegally sends troops into Kurdistan in violation of international law, attacking Kurdish groups.
US retaliates with massive airstrikes, to protect the Kurds.
2000 to 2003- Saddam Hussien sponsors terrorism against Israelis on Israeli territory. Thousands of Israelis die as a result of Saddam's violation of Israeli soverignty.
2003- US invades Iraq, catches Saddam. Iraqi supported suicide bombings end, reducing terrorism in Israel by at least 45%.

Some of that is wrong but not enough to argue about, though I don't know what point you're trying to make.
Let me remind you how this collosal blood-shed started. For reasons that we could debate for years, Al-Quaeda attacked America and the West at the Twin Towers. Thousands of innocent people were killed. The murdered were of all nationalities and Britain was second only, to the US for the dead count. Bin Laden was correctly identified as the instigator and prime mover of the attack. The Taliban refused to hand him over to the US or UN or any international organisation for trial (they are pretty stupid people). After some months, the coalition, the US, UK, France, Germany etc. Attacked Afghanistan with UN approval. Bin Laden has never been caught.
Brush and Blair for reasons we all like to discuss, decided to attack Iraq. The reason they gave the world was the possession of WMD, which the UN inspectors doubted and forcefully told the UN, US and UK. Instead of giving the inpectors requested four weeks further searching, the coalition attacked. It was a pre-emptive stike and not legal according to the world community. Sadaam and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the majority of the attackers were Saudi, a nation we are told is in the coalition. Galloway, long before the first Desert war, railed against the Sadaam, Bathist regime. He was a voice ignored, written off as a 'mere' leftie. It suited the West, who were selling Iraq as much weaponry as it wanted, to allow it to attack Iran. During that period, Sadaam gassed, shot, and dismembered tens of thousands of his own people using western arms and equipment. He was Brush 1's favourite stooge................until he blundered into Kuwait, a rich oil nation and close to the Bin Laden familys' Saudi Arabia. America and Britain could not, would not stand by and watch Sadaam take control of that oil and threaten the Saudis. That could be a war justified by many people, and it's not worth arguing about, the reasons for it are clear. Why Iraq was attacked again is anybodys guess, it certainly wasn't WMD, it certainly wasn't due to any involvement in 9/11. All the commitees in the world, trying to find a few dollars here and there are just one huge smoke-screen to divert attantion away from the single biggest crime of this century, as Galloway said. And he's right.

I also respect Galloway for speaking what millions of people all over the world think. The US needs to face it's crimes and pay for them - at least those who are responsible for them - warcrimes, violations of international law, crimes against humanity. :mad:

It seems to me that the only reason the US allowed Galloway to come and speak out like he did, is so that they could associate any criticism with the Iraq war with the far left shouty unamerican side of politics. There is plenty of opposition within America to their own foreign policy, but the more respectable and crucially, the American voices will not be given a soapbox (or even a leg) to stand on in this issue. Because that would mean they'd have to listen.

What you think of George Galloway, his political standpoint or his style of political debate is pretty much irrelevant for once - much more important is the fact that he is giving voice to the widespread concern over the single most important issue in American politics (as well as in British politics) in recent years.

Personalities are being allowed to overshadow the issues here.

I know that.

War by proxy is not a justification for a third party to violate state sovereingty.

Terrorism is also not the violation of sov. as it is by independent groups. That is like saying the Spanish govt should launch a military attack on the Basque regional govt because Herri Batisuna is in power there- or Britain should launch a military assault on N.Ireland because Sinn Fein is in power.

State sponsored terrorism is hard to prove- there is no evidence that Saddam PAID families to bomb Israel. What hi DID do was financially renumerate them AFTER the act. Semantics maybe- but an important disctinction.

BTW, 'Kurdistan' does not exist. It is an idea for a nation state that exists in the Kurdish mind- and is very doubtful that it will ever come into existence. The Kurds want part of Iran, Iraq and about 40% of Turkey (the PKK have been waging a war against the Turkish state for a few decades now). The Northern No Fly Zone is the area you are referring to- it is NOT a state called Kurdistan and is not recognised as such by any other state.

Neither the Basque region nor Northern Ireland are soverign states. Your comparing them with Iraq is baseless.

He was sending out videos to Palestinian families saying "If you blow yourself up to kill Isrealis, I will hook your families up with lots and lots of money" The fact that you are using Semantics is important. There is no difference between paying the bombers and paying their families as a reward for what the SB's did. It is one and the same.

As I said, Kurdistan is not a state. It is a region. I am not talking about the parts in either Turkey or Iran, I am talking about the part in Iraq. Iran did not go in and slaughter defenseless Kurds, but both Iraq and Turkey did.

I notice that not once did you anti war guys condemn Turkey's repeated violation of Iraqi soverignty throughout the 90's as Turkish troops repeatedly entered Iraqi Kurdistan and butchered several hundred thousand Kurds. Not once. Where was Galloway and his british anti war movement when this happening? We didn't hear a damn peep out of them. But the US goes in, removes Saddam and restores a semblance of human rights for not just the Kurds but for all innocent Iraqi civilians and all of sudden he and his supporters are crying bloody murder and pointing fingers at the US accusing the US of being the cause of all evil in the world. And you want to know why most American are skeptical of your movement and reelected Bush.

Heh, I found something I actually agree with Mr. Galloway on, before you point the finger of blame at someone else you ought to check your ownselves out first.

Also, where you anti war people when Pakistan illegally sent troops into Indian territory? Or when Ecuador illegally sent its forces in Peru?

You want to talk about US human rights violations? Where were you when Mexico was slaughtering hundreds of Chiapis indians?

Where were you when Zimbabwe illegally sent troops into the Democratic Republic of Congo and systematically began slaughtering Congolese citizens?

The anti war movement would be much more credible if it wasn't so hypocritical.

Some of that is wrong but not enough to argue about, though I don't know what point you're trying to make.
Let me remind you how this collosal blood-shed started. For reasons that we could debate for years, Al-Quaeda attacked America and the West at the Twin Towers. Thousands of innocent people were killed. The murdered were of all nationalities and Britain was second only, to the US for the dead count. Bin Laden was correctly identified as the instigator and prime mover of the attack. The Taliban refused to hand him over to the US or UN or any international organisation for trial (they are pretty stupid people). After some months, the coalition, the US, UK, France, Germany etc. Attacked Afghanistan with UN approval. Bin Laden has never been caught.
Brush and Blair for reasons we all like to discuss, decided to attack Iraq. The reason they gave the world was the possession of WMD, which the UN inspectors doubted and forcefully told the UN, US and UK. Instead of giving the inpectors requested four weeks further searching, the coalition attacked. It was a pre-emptive stike and not legal according to the world community. Sadaam and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the majority of the attackers were Saudi, a nation we are told is in the coalition. Galloway, long before the first Desert war, railed against the Sadaam, Bathist regime. He was a voice ignored, written off as a 'mere' leftie. It suited the West, who were selling Iraq as much weaponry as it wanted, to allow it to attack Iran. During that period, Sadaam gassed, shot, and dismembered tens of thousands of his own people using western arms and equipment. He was Brush 1's favourite stooge................until he blundered into Kuwait, a rich oil nation and close to the Bin Laden familys' Saudi Arabia. America and Britain could not, would not stand by and watch Sadaam take control of that oil and threaten the Saudis. That could be a war justified by many people, and it's not worth arguing about, the reasons for it are clear. Why Iraq was attacked again is anybodys guess, it certainly wasn't WMD, it certainly wasn't due to any involvement in 9/11. All the commitees in the world, trying to find a few dollars here and there are just one huge smoke-screen to divert attantion away from the single biggest crime of this century, as Galloway said. And he's right.

We know why Iraq was attacked.

We know that Iraq didn't have WMD's. Any one who kept on Iraq would have known those charges were false but it was an excuse.


We do know that Iraq was rebuilding his military with European and Chinese assistance. Still no reason to attack.


There is no dispute from anyone that Iraq had nothing to do with 911, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up as if it did played a major role in decision to invade.

We know that many people didn't like Saddam nor the way he governed the nation. Still no reason to attack.


But we also know that Iraq was attempting to kill off world leaders and was paying off the families of suicide bombers which, itself, was enough reason to invade Iraq and oust Saddam. Hence why I support the war.

Neither the Basque region nor Northern Ireland are soverign states. Your comparing them with Iraq is baseless.

He was sending out videos to Palestinian families saying "If you blow yourself up to kill Isrealis, I will hook your families up with lots and lots of money" The fact that you are using Semantics is important. There is no difference between paying the bombers and paying their families as a reward for what the SB's did. It is one and the same.

As I said, Kurdistan is not a state. It is a region. I am not talking about the parts in either Turkey or Iran, I am talking about the part in Iraq. Iran did not go in and slaughter defenseless Kurds, but both Iraq and Turkey did.

I notice that not once did you anti war guys condemn Turkey's repeated violation of Iraqi soverignty throughout the 90's as Turkish troops repeatedly entered Iraqi Kurdistan and butchered several hundred thousand Kurds. Not once. Where was Galloway and his british anti war movement when this happening? We didn't hear a damn peep out of them. But the US goes in, removes Saddam and restores a semblance of human rights for not just the Kurds but for all innocent Iraqi civilians and all of sudden he and his supporters are crying bloody murder and pointing fingers at the US accusing the US of being the cause of all evil in the world. And you want to know why most American are skeptical of your movement and reelected Bush.

Heh, I found something I actually agree with Mr. Galloway on, before you point the finger of blame at someone else you ought to check your ownselves out first.

Also, where you anti war people when Pakistan illegally sent troops into Indian territory? Or when Ecuador illegally sent its forces in Peru?

You want to talk about US human rights violations? Where were you when Mexico was slaughtering hundreds of Chiapis indians?

Where were you when Zimbabwe illegally sent troops into the Democratic Republic of Congo and systematically began slaughtering Congolese citizens?

The anti war movement would be much more credible if it wasn't so hypocritical.

Whew.... N. Ireland and the Basque land are members of a confederation(ish) and federal state respectively- their sovereignty is as important to them as say, the Kurds as the example you used. But this is kinda getting away from the point.

Em, you've kinda lumped every single anti war protestor into one giant group- there were protests by NGO's, governments and individuals against all of the above. I'm assuming you mean by 'where were you..' you don't mean me personally :p

The Zapatistas run area is kinda no go area for the Mexican troops- and yes US abuses are highlighted because they are the only superpower left- just as the US highlighted the USSRs abuses during the cold war.

This is why Galloway is now respected more- he actually said what MILLIONS of people AROUND THE WORLD have been trying to say for decades- finally someone got on a big enough platform and let loose. About time.

But we also know that Iraq was attempting to kill off world leaders
em.. WHAT!?

Some semblance of proof would be kinda nice? :eek:

Divert attention? You're too touchy. The original post showed that the commitee was wrong in accusing Galloway and that he put them firmly in their place. I have seen too many people bullied by such commitees, if only more had the courage of Galloway. By the way, I don't like him but that doesn't stop me admiring his oratory and intelligence.
Mightn't be too touchy, just another shill for irresponsibility and blame-shifting. Fits in well with the current U.S. administration. There are MANY, many .... *sigh*

or Britain should launch a military assault on N.Ireland because Sinn Fein is in power.
yea, but the only people 'in power' in NI are the British government. Well, until the assembly gets going again, and even then the DUP are the biggest party.

your analogy seems to have fallen down somewhat :p

your analogy seems to have fallen down somewhat :p

Drat... foiled again :p :D

We know why Iraq was attacked.

We know that Iraq didn't have WMD's. Any one who kept on Iraq would have known those charges were false but it was an excuse.


We do know that Iraq was rebuilding his military with European and Chinese assistance. Still no reason to attack.


There is no dispute from anyone that Iraq had nothing to do with 911, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up as if it did played a major role in decision to invade.

We know that many people didn't like Saddam nor the way he governed the nation. Still no reason to attack.


But we also know that Iraq was attempting to kill off world leaders and was paying off the families of suicide bombers which, itself, was enough reason to invade Iraq and oust Saddam. Hence why I support the war.
Most US presidents support Jewish Terrorism...Saddam supported palestinean terrorism...

what is the Big deal???...BTW where is the proof that Saddam was attempting to kill World Leaders...

Maybe youve seen "America World Police" one time too many...but let me tel you 2 things
1# It was just a movie.
2# It was not even Saddam...it was soem Korean guy.. :D

Drat... foiled again :p :D
you should always remember that on NS there is always someone to ruin your plans ;)

you should always remember that on NS there is always "someone" to ruin your plans ;)also...you should always remember that I would love to be that "special someone"

all I am wainting for is a chance to jump on you...so keep your guard up....

cheers...and keep playing :D ;) :D :D