Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
British MP Galloway Slams U.S. War in Iraq & Ties to Saddam During Senate Testimony
On Tuesday British politician George Galloway testified in Washington as part of the Senate's so-called oil for food scandal. Galloway said "This is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth."
The headline in the right wing New York Post today reads, "Brit Fries Senators in Oil." That was their take on the appearance of the fiery antiwar British politician George Galloway before a US Senate Committee yesterday, where he defended himself against accusations that he took kickbacks from Saddam Hussein's government. Republican Senator Norm Coleman has been investigating the so-called oil for food scandal. Last week, Coleman's committee publicly accused Galloway and an antiwar French politician of taking millions of dollars in oil allocations from Saddam's government. After the report came out last week, Galloway immediately said he would come to Washington and blasted the committee for not having contacted him during the course of its investigation.
On the eve of Galloway's appearance before the Senate, Democratic staff on the investigations subcommittee released a report that 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 subcommittee against U.N. staff and European politicians like Galloway and the former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua. In fact, the Senate report found that U.S. oil purchases accounted for 52 percent of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil -- more than those of the rest of the world put together. The report says "The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated U.N. sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing U.N. sanctions. On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."
Only two senators were present for the questioning of Galloway -- Republican Senator Norm Coleman and Democrat Carl Levin. Levin spent much of his opening statement attacking the hypocrisy of the US government. While Senator Coleman may have hoped to corner Galloway, the antiwar member of the British parliament turned the tables on the committee and used it as an opportunity to blast the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Galloway: "Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth. Have a look at the real oil-for-food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months...when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch."
Galloway also used his appearance before the committee to hammer away at the long record of U.S. support for Saddam Hussein, in particular the current U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Galloway: I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, one 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've met with 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 to better target those guns. I met him to try to bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war and on the second of two occasions I met him to try and persuade him to allow 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 Defense made of his."
In building its case against Galloway, the Senate Committee says it interviewed Saddam Hussein's former Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, who is currently in US custody. Senator Coleman alleges that Ramadan confirmed that Galloway had received compensation from the Iraqi government for his work in support of the Iraqi people.
Galloway: I've never met Mr. Taha Yassin Ramadan, your subcommittee apparently has. But I do know that he's your prisoner. I believe he's in Abu Ghraib prison. I believe he's facing war crimes, charges punishable by death. In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram air base, in Guantanamo Bay, including I may say British citizens being held in those places, I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you managed to get from a prisoner in those circumstances.
British member of parliament George Galloway speaking yesterday in front of the Senate Committee investigating the so-called oil for food scandal. Galloway was kicked out of the British Labour Party for his opposition to the Iraq war and for attacking Prime Minister Tony Blair. Galloway won reelection in the last British elections, beating a key ally of Tony Blair.
LISTEN ONLINE
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/18/1435204
On the eve of Galloway's appearance before the Senate, Democratic staff on the investigations subcommittee released a report that 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 subcommittee against U.N. staff and European politicians like Galloway and the former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua. In fact, the Senate report found that U.S. oil purchases accounted for 52 percent of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil -- more than those of the rest of the world put together. The report says "The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated U.N. sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing U.N. sanctions. On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."
Only two senators were present for the questioning of Galloway -- Republican Senator Norm Coleman and Democrat Carl Levin. Levin spent much of his opening statement attacking the hypocrisy of the US government. While Senator Coleman may have hoped to corner Galloway, the antiwar member of the British parliament turned the tables on the committee and used it as an opportunity to blast the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Galloway: "Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth. Have a look at the real oil-for-food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months...when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch."
Galloway also used his appearance before the committee to hammer away at the long record of U.S. support for Saddam Hussein, in particular the current U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Galloway: I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, one 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've met with 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 to better target those guns. I met him to try to bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war and on the second of two occasions I met him to try and persuade him to allow 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 Defense made of his."
In building its case against Galloway, the Senate Committee says it interviewed Saddam Hussein's former Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, who is currently in US custody. Senator Coleman alleges that Ramadan confirmed that Galloway had received compensation from the Iraqi government for his work in support of the Iraqi people.
Galloway: I've never met Mr. Taha Yassin Ramadan, your subcommittee apparently has. But I do know that he's your prisoner. I believe he's in Abu Ghraib prison. I believe he's facing war crimes, charges punishable by death. In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram air base, in Guantanamo Bay, including I may say British citizens being held in those places, I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you managed to get from a prisoner in those circumstances.
British member of parliament George Galloway speaking yesterday in front of the Senate Committee investigating the so-called oil for food scandal. Galloway was kicked out of the British Labour Party for his opposition to the Iraq war and for attacking Prime Minister Tony Blair. Galloway won reelection in the last British elections, beating a key ally of Tony Blair.
LISTEN ONLINE
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/18/1435204
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
George Galloway is anti-abortion and anti-free speech for Salman Rushdie. This man is a con artist; keep away from him. See http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1768348.php
For more information:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/176834...
I'm listening to the debate as I write this and Galloway got ripped that night. I had tickets but sold two to a solemn-looking lefty for $80. Hope you enjoyed the show.
Incidentally, Jane Fonda backed out of her pledge to tour with him. Guess she finally saw him in action.
@%<
@%<
there is more innuendo from gehrig, devoid of any substantive criticism
of course, the probable explanation is that Fonda withdrew because she is pro-Israel while Galloway is pro-Palestinian
with the other, being, quite bluntly, Fonda's unwillingness to be associated with any public political activity that she perceives might damage her marketability
naturally, Galloway's long time support for the Palestinians, dating back to the 1970s, is one of the real reasons gehrig dislikes Galloway, but, for some peculiar reason, he doesn't want to publicly express it
so instead, we get innuendo, links to articles, for example, the one last week by Greg Palast, another Zionist, while trying to avoid being too closely associated with the substance of the substituted charges themselves, because even he is apparently a little too discomforted by the seaminess of it
or, maybe, given Galloway's expressed willingness to sue anyone who claims that he profited from Miriam's Appeal, as set forth in the article below, perhaps gehrig is just being extra, extra careful, even if the prospect of Galloway reading one of his posts is slight
people are free to draw whatever conclusions about Galloway that they like, as he has a long, politically contentious record, but I would advise readers to be careful about posters who have another agenda that they are unwilling to publicly acknowledge
Tony Blair's pit bull, Alastair Campbell, known for numerous instances of character assassination through gossip and what James Ellroy describes as "sinuendo" in his LA Quartet novels, like LA Confidential, was probably involved here somewhere back in the day
as for Palast himself, here is Galloway's response in typically ascerbic style, and note, to this day, the US Congress, after claiming that he profited from oil sales during the sanctions, has not, to this day, brought perjury charges against him after his vigorous denial
[The Slime Artist
Et Tu, Greg Palast?
By GEORGE GALLOWAY
Until a couple of days ago I hadn't heard of Greg Palast in years, the man who claims to have been pursuing me with questions for two months. He has never phoned, written, emailed or made any other contact with me, which is curiously reminiscent of the behavior of the US Senate committee. Having now forced myself to look at his pernicious writing, it seems like the deranged ramblings you might expect to find pushed out from under the door of a locked ward. He claims to be a journalist. He clearly doesn't get much work.
Palast conflates meetings, truths and half-truths, statements taken out of context to produce a toxic smear which would be actionable in the country he claims to work in, my country. How many times do I have to respond to the ravings of guttersnipes? I met Saddam twice, the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld. The difference is that I wasn't trying to sell him weapons and guidance systems. The first, and infamous time, my words were taken out of context. The second, where Saddam revealed his favorite confectionery, I was trying to persuade him to let the weapons' inspectors back in. A vain mission, of course, as the US and UK had already decided to illegally go to war whatever he did.
The Mariam Appeal, which Palast drags in to allege I benefited financially from its work, was not a charity. It was a political campaign. Its primary function was not to provide medicines for Iraqi children, although we did, but to highlight the political conditions which were killing them. Sanctions! The largest donor was the ruler of the UAE (who gave approximately £500,000), followed by Fawaz Zureikat's £375,000, and then the now king of Saudi Arabia (a regime I loath) with £150,000. The donations of these three represented 99% of the campaign's total income. These donors were prominently identified at the time, there was no attempt to hide them, as this palooka claims. None of them have complained the money was ill-spent. Palast might take the view that finance should not be taken from such sources. Sorry, but needs must.
Among the works undertaken by the appeal was a daily newsletter on sanctions, a sanctions-busting flight into Baghdad, the Big Ben to Baghdad trip in a red London bus, countless meetings and conferences, posters and flyers, the projection of an anti-war slogan on the House of Commons, the first time that had ever been done -- and the facilitating of trips to Iraq by dozens of journalists, many of whom sat in on my meetings with Tariq Aziz. And virtually all of whom were conducted around Baghdad by Fawaz Zureikat, openly introduced as the Mariam Appeal's chairman, as well as a businessman trading with Iraq. We brought Mariam Hamza to Britain for treatment -- immodestly, but factually, I claim that we saved her life -- where she remained for half a year, sent back cured. I could go on and on but my enemies would surely claim I was blowing my own trumpet.
But what I will not tolerate -- and will sue in any territory where it is possible to do so -- is the lie that I personally benefited financially from the campaign. The Charity Commission inquiry Palast refers to was occasioned by a referral from Tony Blair's Attorney General. The commission are in possession of every receipt of funds and every cheque issues or bank transfer ever made. They satisfied that there was no malfeasance and closed the case without further action, no doubt to the disappointment of Mr Blair's Attorney General. Charities in Britain cannot campaign politically, which was the prime function of the appeal and in their judgment the commission said that the operation should have been split in two, one arm of which, the one which provided the physical aid, should have registered as a charity. Well, sorry, but that's poppycock.
The stumblebum then drags in Hitchens -- perhaps it's two bums finding mutual support -- a man I recently debated in New York. For what seems like the ten-thousandth time let me try to finally nail the canard that I benefited through the oil-for-food programme, an allegation at the time of writing which has netted me at least $4 million in libel damages and costs. Of course, when I talked with Tariq Aziz, I talked about the programme, but only in respect of the effects it was having on Iraq. I did not request or receive oil vouchers. I did not benefit financially. Not by one thin dime! I said voluntarily and on pain of prosecution under oath to the US Senate committee -- another body which doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good smear -- and I say it again. If I had been guilty of what Palast alleges I'd be sitting not in the House of Commons but a prison cell! Let that be an end to it because I'm sure the public is even more tired and bemused than I am.
Crawl back under your rock, Mr Palast!]
of course, the probable explanation is that Fonda withdrew because she is pro-Israel while Galloway is pro-Palestinian
with the other, being, quite bluntly, Fonda's unwillingness to be associated with any public political activity that she perceives might damage her marketability
naturally, Galloway's long time support for the Palestinians, dating back to the 1970s, is one of the real reasons gehrig dislikes Galloway, but, for some peculiar reason, he doesn't want to publicly express it
so instead, we get innuendo, links to articles, for example, the one last week by Greg Palast, another Zionist, while trying to avoid being too closely associated with the substance of the substituted charges themselves, because even he is apparently a little too discomforted by the seaminess of it
or, maybe, given Galloway's expressed willingness to sue anyone who claims that he profited from Miriam's Appeal, as set forth in the article below, perhaps gehrig is just being extra, extra careful, even if the prospect of Galloway reading one of his posts is slight
people are free to draw whatever conclusions about Galloway that they like, as he has a long, politically contentious record, but I would advise readers to be careful about posters who have another agenda that they are unwilling to publicly acknowledge
Tony Blair's pit bull, Alastair Campbell, known for numerous instances of character assassination through gossip and what James Ellroy describes as "sinuendo" in his LA Quartet novels, like LA Confidential, was probably involved here somewhere back in the day
as for Palast himself, here is Galloway's response in typically ascerbic style, and note, to this day, the US Congress, after claiming that he profited from oil sales during the sanctions, has not, to this day, brought perjury charges against him after his vigorous denial
[The Slime Artist
Et Tu, Greg Palast?
By GEORGE GALLOWAY
Until a couple of days ago I hadn't heard of Greg Palast in years, the man who claims to have been pursuing me with questions for two months. He has never phoned, written, emailed or made any other contact with me, which is curiously reminiscent of the behavior of the US Senate committee. Having now forced myself to look at his pernicious writing, it seems like the deranged ramblings you might expect to find pushed out from under the door of a locked ward. He claims to be a journalist. He clearly doesn't get much work.
Palast conflates meetings, truths and half-truths, statements taken out of context to produce a toxic smear which would be actionable in the country he claims to work in, my country. How many times do I have to respond to the ravings of guttersnipes? I met Saddam twice, the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld. The difference is that I wasn't trying to sell him weapons and guidance systems. The first, and infamous time, my words were taken out of context. The second, where Saddam revealed his favorite confectionery, I was trying to persuade him to let the weapons' inspectors back in. A vain mission, of course, as the US and UK had already decided to illegally go to war whatever he did.
The Mariam Appeal, which Palast drags in to allege I benefited financially from its work, was not a charity. It was a political campaign. Its primary function was not to provide medicines for Iraqi children, although we did, but to highlight the political conditions which were killing them. Sanctions! The largest donor was the ruler of the UAE (who gave approximately £500,000), followed by Fawaz Zureikat's £375,000, and then the now king of Saudi Arabia (a regime I loath) with £150,000. The donations of these three represented 99% of the campaign's total income. These donors were prominently identified at the time, there was no attempt to hide them, as this palooka claims. None of them have complained the money was ill-spent. Palast might take the view that finance should not be taken from such sources. Sorry, but needs must.
Among the works undertaken by the appeal was a daily newsletter on sanctions, a sanctions-busting flight into Baghdad, the Big Ben to Baghdad trip in a red London bus, countless meetings and conferences, posters and flyers, the projection of an anti-war slogan on the House of Commons, the first time that had ever been done -- and the facilitating of trips to Iraq by dozens of journalists, many of whom sat in on my meetings with Tariq Aziz. And virtually all of whom were conducted around Baghdad by Fawaz Zureikat, openly introduced as the Mariam Appeal's chairman, as well as a businessman trading with Iraq. We brought Mariam Hamza to Britain for treatment -- immodestly, but factually, I claim that we saved her life -- where she remained for half a year, sent back cured. I could go on and on but my enemies would surely claim I was blowing my own trumpet.
But what I will not tolerate -- and will sue in any territory where it is possible to do so -- is the lie that I personally benefited financially from the campaign. The Charity Commission inquiry Palast refers to was occasioned by a referral from Tony Blair's Attorney General. The commission are in possession of every receipt of funds and every cheque issues or bank transfer ever made. They satisfied that there was no malfeasance and closed the case without further action, no doubt to the disappointment of Mr Blair's Attorney General. Charities in Britain cannot campaign politically, which was the prime function of the appeal and in their judgment the commission said that the operation should have been split in two, one arm of which, the one which provided the physical aid, should have registered as a charity. Well, sorry, but that's poppycock.
The stumblebum then drags in Hitchens -- perhaps it's two bums finding mutual support -- a man I recently debated in New York. For what seems like the ten-thousandth time let me try to finally nail the canard that I benefited through the oil-for-food programme, an allegation at the time of writing which has netted me at least $4 million in libel damages and costs. Of course, when I talked with Tariq Aziz, I talked about the programme, but only in respect of the effects it was having on Iraq. I did not request or receive oil vouchers. I did not benefit financially. Not by one thin dime! I said voluntarily and on pain of prosecution under oath to the US Senate committee -- another body which doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good smear -- and I say it again. If I had been guilty of what Palast alleges I'd be sitting not in the House of Commons but a prison cell! Let that be an end to it because I'm sure the public is even more tired and bemused than I am.
Crawl back under your rock, Mr Palast!]
..and that is saying alot. There is quite a bit of competition for the title: Mike al-Moor, Mark Danner, etc.
Galloway is like thousands of other Americans and others world wide being killed or imprisoned by an international regime that will soon meet its end, as the war is now, right now in America and it is bound to spread.
The USA government is a two faced liar with a corrupt faction fit for the international gallows.
Galloway, stay away from the gallows and if they throw a rope on your neck, we will look forward the Genghis Khans and Adolf Hitlers and Idi Amins and my favorite Serial Killer Randy Kraft, because to me they are all the same and the Bush is as fake as plastic and three times more wealthy than the Sheriff I caught stealing, Sheriff Jack Snatch Tillman of Mobile Alabama USA.
If we are to imprison Hussein, we must imprison Ariel Sharon and George Bush, Jr., if either of them is still in control of themselves. We are at war because the regime drew first blood.
They have a machine that enables them to interrogate and make you forget. Physics will give us or them a duplicate window to stand in while the other side has its body flushed into a black hole.
Mobile Audit Club at your service, music and videos of abuse and defense systems designs and comedy.
http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/democracyordeath/index.html
The USA government is a two faced liar with a corrupt faction fit for the international gallows.
Galloway, stay away from the gallows and if they throw a rope on your neck, we will look forward the Genghis Khans and Adolf Hitlers and Idi Amins and my favorite Serial Killer Randy Kraft, because to me they are all the same and the Bush is as fake as plastic and three times more wealthy than the Sheriff I caught stealing, Sheriff Jack Snatch Tillman of Mobile Alabama USA.
If we are to imprison Hussein, we must imprison Ariel Sharon and George Bush, Jr., if either of them is still in control of themselves. We are at war because the regime drew first blood.
They have a machine that enables them to interrogate and make you forget. Physics will give us or them a duplicate window to stand in while the other side has its body flushed into a black hole.
Mobile Audit Club at your service, music and videos of abuse and defense systems designs and comedy.
http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/democracyordeath/index.html
For more information:
http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/democracyor...
where's the 12 galaxies guy when we need him?
These bizarre comments against Galloway must have come from aliens infecting your brains....
Galloway Dumb?
He's an eloquent critic of the fascist empire. Read his words, listen to his speeches, review his track record. Then get over yourself.
These bizarre comments against Galloway must have come from aliens infecting your brains....
Galloway Dumb?
He's an eloquent critic of the fascist empire. Read his words, listen to his speeches, review his track record. Then get over yourself.
So, who the heck cares if Fonda backed out? What dime of a difference does it make? Does it change the fact that US is occupying the soverign nations of Iraq and Afghanistan -not to mention the economical occupation of rest of the poor and deprived. Does it change the fact that Israel is the colonial thug imposed in Middle East and supported by US by OUR tax dollars? Does it change the fact that US is gonna get kicked out of Iraq and Afghanistan sooner or later -does Vietnam ring any bell? Do you remember that the Russian imperial fucks were also kicked out by the freedom fighters (Talebans) which by the way were also funded by our tax dollars. Do you recall the French colonial fucks that get kicked out of Algiers? Or are you just another mindless right wing, bible thumping, gun slinging, tobacco chewing, truck driving American that just doesn't get it? Huh?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$160.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network