Well theres a turn up for the books.

Hobbes

No wonder the US was able to find out who was abusing the oil-for-food program, appears they knew all along.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4554507.stm

Who would of thought it? :rolleyes:

Quantum

With respect this is such old news. The US, British, Russians, French etc all new that the program was leaking like a sieve. They allowed it to continue for all kinds of political reasons.

However it in no way justifies the UN who were rersponsible for the program - or the kind of cynical exploitation of the program by the French and the Russians and people like Galloway who did everything they could to keep a mass murderer in power.

Hobbes

Will be intresting to see Galloways media circus now when he goes to the US to claim he is not guilty.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Will be intresting to see Galloways media circus now when he goes to the US to claim he is not guilty.

Yes that is something I am looking foward to seeing.
He flew over this morning to Washington to take part voluntarily in the senate hearing that has accused him of being in Sadams pocket.
It's going to be uber interesting as to how they will deal with it.

Hobbes

I can picture it now..

FOX NEWS (on 5 second delay).
Galloway: I just have this to say.....
Fox Shill: We seemed to have lost sound but our on the floor reporter is telling us he likes to eat babies and sleep with men as well as he was Saddams love slave.

sleepwalker

it was on sky news this afternoon for quite awhile, Galloway infront of the committe

i have to say he did a superb job defending himself, excellent speaker and he also pointed out some embarrasing mistakes in the documents. the senator who is was speaking directly to was comically squirming in his seat throughout. more entertaining than the michael jackson reconstructions anyway

pete

"I am not now or ever been an oil trader and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one, and neither has anybody on my behalf," Galloway said.

He also said he did not own a company that trades in oil.

"If you had any evidence of that I had ever engaged in any actual oil transaction, if you had any evidence that anybody ever gave me any money, it would be before the public and before this" committee today, Galloway said.

Galloway, 51, has been a leading critic of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his alliance with U.S. President George Bush in the war with Iraq. He was re-elected on an anti-war platform earlier this month.

He said he was "friendly" with former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz and met him many times, but met with Saddam only twice in his career -- in 1994 and in 2002, the last time to persuade Saddam to allow U.N. weapons inspectors into the country.

He said he had met with Saddam twice -- "exactly as many times as Donald Rumsfeld has met with him."

"The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and give him maps," Galloway said in a heated opening statement.

"I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second occasion, I met him to try and persuade him to allow Hans Blix and U.N. inspectors back into country,"

Galloway complained that the panel had determined his guilt without speaking to him .

"You have my name on lists provided to you by the Dopher inquiry, provided to him by the convicted bank robber and fraudster and con man Ahmed Chalabi, who many people, to their credit, in your country now realize played a decisive role in leading your country into the disaster in Iraq," Galloway said in a heated opening statement to a Senate panel investigating the charges.

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

pete

And from FoxNews.com: "Saucy Brit Berates Congress, U.S."

Galloway, who arrived in the United States late Monday night, argued that documents suggesting he got the vouchers are bogus and that the Iraqi officials who ratted him out are lying.

"You have the gall to quote a source without ever having asked me if the allegations were true, that I am the 'owner of a company which has made substantial profits from oil for food,'" Galloway said, noting that he owns no companies besides a media firm in London.

"You had no business to carry a quotation utterly unsubstantiated and falsely implying otherwise," he said. "You've already found me guilty before I have had a chance to come here and defend myself."

(Saucy??!?)

pete

Finally, the BBC have the video up.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

I've just watched it on Sky news and have to say Galloway gave an excelent account of himself.
He was very evasive when asked if he was troubled by his associates "kick backs" to Saddam but other than that,I'd say they wont be calling him again.
It doesnt suit them to have him soap boxing on their media.

RagShagBill

http://www.hurryupharry.net

Galloway said to the Senate, under oath, today that the Mariam Appeal's finances had been investigated by the Charity Commission he said that they had looked at "every penny in and every penny out" and cleared the Appeal.

I've seen that line taken by Stoppers on the internet but I was amazed to hear Galloway come out with it.

Because it isn't true.

The Charity Commission report on the Mariam Appeal stated:

12. The Commission has been unable to obtain all the books and records of the Appeal. Mr Galloway, the first Chairman of the Appeal, has stated that this documentation was sent to Amman and Baghdad in 2001 when Fawaz Zuriekat became Chairman of the Appeal. Mr Galloway has informed the Commission that this documentation is no longer under the control of the original trustees of the Appeal and cannot be located by them. Mr Galloway confirmed that the Appeal did not produce annual profit and loss accounts or balance sheets.

Unfortunately it appears Senator Coleman was not aware of this very important section of the Charity Commission report and let Galloway's distortion pass without comment.

Yet, it is absolutely vital to the main question of whether the pro-Saddam businessman Fawaz Zuriekat pumped oil for food cash, allegedly gained by kickbacks to Saddam, into Galloway's political campaign.

Galloway promised two years ago to Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight to make the finances of the Mariam Appeal public.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
Will you open the accounts?

GEORGE GALLOWAY:
Yes.

But to this day he has not kept that promise.

Quantum

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I feel exactly the same.... I start to get violent emotions whenever I see him on tv... which are exacerbated by having this disturbing admiration for the sheer balls of the guy.

pete

RagShagBill wrote:

http://www.hurryupharry.net

"The 12-month inquiry involved detailed research into the receipt and payment of appeal funds and activities. Proper accounts were not available as the books and records had been sent abroad three years earlier, but the commission used its legal powers to get information from banks and other parties."

http://society.guardian.co.uk/charitymanagement/story/0,8150,1249131,00.html

Also

18. The Commission informed the trustees who had received salary payments from the Appeal’s funds that these were indeed unauthorised benefits made in breach of the trusts of the Appeal. The Commission has informed these trustees and Mr Galloway that, as the services provided were of value to the Appeal and as there was no evidence of bad faith on behalf of any member of the Executive Committee, none of them being aware that these payments were unauthorised and believing them to be necessary, the Commission would not be pursuing recovery of those sums.

20. The Commission advised the trustees that they had a duty to keep accounting records under trust law and as a charity should have kept and produced accounts in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However given that the founders of the Appeal were unaware that they had created a charity and because the Commission has found no evidence that the funds of the Appeal were misapplied (other than the payment of unauthorised benefits to trustees), the Commission will be taking no further action on this matter.

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/investigations/inquiryreports/mariam2.asp

sceptre

Quantum wrote:

With respect this is such old news. The US, British, Russians, French etc all new that the program was leaking like a sieve.

The "etc" of course includes you, me and the cat down the street.

mycroft

Quantum wrote:

I feel exactly the same.... I start to get violent emotions whenever I see him on tv... which are exacerbated by having this disturbing admiration for the sheer balls of the guy.

I think it ranked alongside the "at long last have you no decency sir, have you no shame" senatorial questioning that floored, finally, Mc Carthy, the finest performance of anyone in decades on the floor of the US (screw ollie north). I've watched hours of senate hearings, and the Weapons inspector hearings and bulter inquiry. Galloway for all his faults and flaws is the commons debating champion, he fecking owned those guys. He was empahtic he stuck to the facts, he challenged them over assertions and accusations, he forced them to admit whether something was accurate or true. Few months back I was worried was galloway the Hoffa of the new left, but hoffa stalled and hum'd and haw'd galloway charged in without a fear. Can't not be admired for that.

Lemming

Jesus that video was entertaining.

All I have to say with regards the US senate committee .... pwn3d!!!

What makes it even more amusing is their reactions afterwards, trying to play it down. Everyone knows they got an absolute beasting from Galloway but there they are doing the "tough guy" stereotype. You know it - guy gets a broken nose and a kicking off someone, then gets up, shrugs off the people helping him up and goes "he got lucky. It didn't hurt" whilst he's crying like a baby.

I'm following the commentary on news.yahoo.com and laughing my ass off. Everyone, and I do mean everyone knows that the US government took an absolute ass-f*cking from Galloway. Without lubrication.

bonkey

article posted by somenoe earlier wrote:

Galloway, 51, has been a leading critic of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his alliance with U.S. President George Bush in the war with Iraq.

He must be guilty. Hang him.

jc

Quantum

mycroft wrote:

I think it ranked alongside the "at long last have you no decency sir, have you no shame" senatorial questioning that floored, finally, Mc Carthy, the finest performance of anyone in decades on the floor of the US (screw ollie north). I've watched hours of senate hearings, and the Weapons inspector hearings and bulter inquiry. Galloway for all his faults and flaws is the commons debating champion, he fecking owned those guys. He was empahtic he stuck to the facts, he challenged them over assertions and accusations, he forced them to admit whether something was accurate or true.

Completely wrong.

The Senate, the Presidential press corps and US politics in general is extraordinary weak in debating energy, directness and passion, and Galloway brought a sample of what Irish and UK governments have to deal with daily in their parliaments.
So Galloway may get good marks for sheer balls but his whole presentation and accusations are nothing but a diatribe of lies, damned lies and vaccuous jibberish - delivered undeniably with great passion.

The senators were very smart in their treatment of him. They allowed him to blow off his steam and impress his supporters while they stuck to the facts very cooly and calmly. They played him with senatorial aplomb.

In the end he got some admiration for his temerity, but was exposed as a liar and a collaborator with a mass murderer. The coverage on US television afterwards reflected this extremely well and in the end it was much to do about very little except the one man campaign of hate and denial and obvious guilt.

Lemming

quantum wrote:

The senators were very smart in their treatment of him. They allowed him to blow off his steam and impress his supporters while they stuck to the facts very cooly and calmly. They played him with senatorial aplomb.

Don't mistake silence with intent. Coleman lost control of that hearing rapidly and looked extrordinarily uncomfortable in his seat.

In the end he got some admiration for his temerity, but was exposed as a liar and a collaborator with a mass murderer. The coverage on US television afterwards reflected this extremely well and in the end it was much to do about very little except the one man campaign of hate and denial and obvious guilt.

Hmmmm, I've not seen any of what he said refutted yet. Galloway was quite right when he said that if they had anything of proof it'd be displayed on a big board at that hearing for all to see.

So ... linkage to your claims of exposure as a liar and collaborator please?

mycroft

Quantum wrote:

Completely wrong.


So Galloway may get good marks for sheer balls but his whole presentation and accusations are nothing but a diatribe of lies, damned lies and vaccuous jibberish - delivered undeniably with great passion.

What where the lies and damn lies?

In the end he got some admiration for his temerity, but was exposed as a liar and a collaborator with a mass murderer. The coverage on US television afterwards reflected this extremely well and in the end it was much to do about very little except the one man campaign of hate and denial and obvious guilt.

What lies? and what collaborator? Keep in mind the telegraph is still smarting from a rather large legal bill for those claims that they didn't even try to prove in court.

Quantum

Lemming wrote:

Don't mistake silence with intent. Coleman lost control of that hearing rapidly and looked extrordinarily uncomfortable in his seat.

He was uncomfortable ok, as anyone would be facing such an onslought. But he was in control all the way though and allowed Galloway to blow himself out. I thought it worked very well and only those who support him were convinced of anything except the toughness of his nuts

Hmmmm, I've not seen any of what he said refutted yet.

He lied about his visits to Saddam which were intended to, and did, support Saddam, who murdered hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and Kuwait and who harboured international terrorists. He lied about the war which liberated 25 million people from a mass murderer and he lied about Bush and Blair lying to the people. I cannot find a single thing that he told the truth about.
You may disagree, but that's how I see it.

Galloway was quite right when he said that if they had anything of proof it'd be displayed on a big board at that hearing for all to see.

I don't see it that way. They don't need to post it out front. They are looking at the evidence they received logically and methodically and in time it will be found to be true or not true. The Telegraph is smarting from an over hasty publication exposing Galloway and though they were most likely 100% correct, they weren't able to prove it in a court of law.

mycroft

Quantum wrote:

You may disagree, but that's how I see it.
I don't see it that way. They don't need to post it out front. They are looking at the evidence they received logically and methodically and in time it will be found to be true or not true. The Telegraph is smarting from an over hasty publication exposing Galloway and though they were most likely 100% correct, they weren't able to prove it in a court of law.

Thats incorrect. The Telegraph didn't even try to prove it in court. They used the very dubious defence of public interest.They tried to argue that they weren't sure if the allegations were true, but it was in the public interest to reveal them.

he paper argued that publication could be defended on the grounds of "qualified privilege" - the story was of overriding public interest and was published in good faith.

from the media guardian registeration required

Making an allegation and then refusing to defend it, is not an acceptable defense, and the telegraph couldn't and didn't even try to say whether it was true or not.

bonkey

Quantum wrote:

He lied about his visits to Saddam which were intended to, and did, support Saddam, who murdered hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and Kuwait and who harboured international terrorists. He lied about the war which liberated 25 million people from a mass murderer and he lied about Bush and Blair lying to the people. I cannot find a single thing that he told the truth about.
You may disagree, but that's how I see it.

Ah, but you weer being questioned on your assertion that he was exposed as a liar and a collaborator with a mass murderer.. How was he exposed as this is the question...not whether or not he is these things, surely?

They don't need to post it out front.

If you are asking someone for their testimony regarding allegations against them, it is generally incumbent upon you to supply the basis upon which those allegations is based.

They are looking at the evidence they received logically and methodically and in time it will be found to be true or not true.

But in the meantime are progressing - as Galloway pointed out - as though they have already decided (and/or already know) who is and isn't guilty - not that the Americans would ever do such a thing.

jc

Lemming

Quantum wrote:

He was uncomfortable ok, as anyone would be facing such an onslought. But he was in control all the way though and allowed Galloway to blow himself out. I thought it worked very well and only those who support him were convinced of anything except the toughness of his nuts

Firstly, I am not a Galloway supporter in so far as I'm quite indifferent to the man. As regards Coleman's control, he had so much control that he called recess and left the senate building immediately. Basically turning tail and running. Coleman knows he got minced in there and wasn't staying around to get questioned about it. Everyone knows he got minced and is putting a brave face on the matter.

I also did not see Galloway "blowing himself out". He went on the attack and stayed on the attack throughout. Hardly "blowing" out.

He lied about his visits to Saddam which were intended to, and did, support Saddam, who murdered hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and Kuwait and who harboured international terrorists. He lied about the war which liberated 25 million people from a mass murderer and he lied about Bush and Blair lying to the people. I cannot find a single thing that he told the truth about.

You may disagree, but that's how I see it.

As I have asked earlier, and have yet to see from yourself, exactly where all this evidence is? Where his claims have been refutted or proved false. As others have said, he'd want to have made damn sure he wasn't telling porkies when he walked in there, because he did so without immunity from prosecution.

All we have from you is the same innuendo & material that the Daily Telegraph spouted, and we know what happened with that particular episode .....

I don't see it that way. They don't need to post it out front. They are looking at the evidence they received logically and methodically and in time it will be found to be true or not true. The Telegraph is smarting from an over hasty publication exposing Galloway and though they were most likely 100% correct, they weren't able to prove it in a court of law.

By the same logic, then they shouldn't be grand-standing and making open public statements, showing snippets of evidence and withholding other parts because to do so would prejudice any potential jury and undermine their case. Once again I itterate, Galloway was right in his statement regarding evidence, and Coleman's cavalier attitude towards due-process.

Boggle

Quantum wrote:

He lied about his visits to Saddam which were intended to, and did, support Saddam, who murdered hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and Kuwait and who harboured international terrorists. He lied about the war which liberated 25 million people from a mass murderer and he lied about Bush and Blair lying to the people. I cannot find a single thing that he told the truth about.
You may disagree, but that's how I see it.

Please understand that I have not seen the whole interview, merely a (possibly) partisan account of what went on so would you mind indulging me in explaining the following: If these are all lies then would you mind setting out, in detail if possible, exactly what you think the truth is and then would you mind showing me the information on which you based your stance?

It's not that I want to undermine your position but I do find one or 2 of your claims extraordinary. Such as:
a) Why when he accounted for his multiple (erm... 2!) meetings with Saddam did they not counter his story with the real facts.
b) When he claimed that Bush and Blaire lied to their people ... as far as I can tell they did!! (WMD's & 30 minute deployments... wasn't that paper written by a student or something?? // Bush's inexplicable eagerness to topple Saddam when there are worse dictators in the world... could it have been because of the oil??)
c) If they really had evidence, then why didn't they submit it and allow him the opportunity to counter it??

Anyway goin back in me shell for now but would be interested in your reply as, like I said, I openly admit to not knowing alot about this Galloway fellow...