Need more Galloway!!!

[Stemalot]

Sweet!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4553601.stm#

 

Explosive showdown in Senate

 

George Galloway had vowed to give US senators "both barrels" and after sitting - coiled - through an hour-and-half of testimony against him, he unloaded all his ammunition.

 

Far from displaying the forelock-tugging deference to which senators are accustomed, Mr Galloway went on the attack.

 

He rubbished committee chairman Norm Coleman's dossier of evidence and stared him in the eye.

 

"Now I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer, you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice," the MP declared.

 

The whole room scanned Mr Coleman's face for a reaction. The senator shifted in his seat - nervously it seemed.

 

It was the first time a British politician had been interrogated as a hostile witness at the US Senate - but Mr Galloway cast himself not as the accused, but the accuser.

 

On stage at the heart of American power, he attacked the US-led war on Iraq and accused Washington of installing a "puppet" regime there.

 

'Lions' den'

 

The Scotsman launched into his opening statement with relish.

 

 

This was not a wrestling match - it wasn't a contest

Senator Norm Coleman

 

He had never received any money or any allocations of oil from Iraq. He was not, as the committee alleged, a supporter of Saddam Hussein.

 

"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," he told the committee.

 

Mr Galloway had expected to testify before a panel of 13 senators in what he termed their "lions' den".

 

But he faced off against just two, Mr Coleman and Democratic counterpart Carl Levin.

 

It was Republican Mr Coleman who bore the brunt of the attack in one of the Senate's most flamboyant confrontations.

 

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong," he told the chairman, whom he labelled a "neo-con, pro-war hawk".

 

Mr Coleman tried desperately to take it without emotion, but at one point could not resist breaking in to a smile.

 

'He's no lyncher'

 

In the face of Mr Galloway's refusal to accept anything the senators were claiming might be true, they tried to establish a link between a Jordanian businessman who they believe received oil allocations from Saddam Hussein, and Mr Galloway's children's charity.

 

Senator Norm Coleman (l) listens to Mr Galloway

At times the Senate panel looked uncomfortable

 

Mr Galloway said the businessman had given money to the charity but he, Mr Galloway, had never known where it came from.

 

The senators believe that it came from Iraq, but they could come up with no proof and their questions ended.

 

Senator Levin later said he was "deeply troubled" that Mr Galloway had "ducked the question".

 

But it was Mr Galloway who looked most satisfied as he left the vast, wood-panelled committee room.

 

Outside in a corridor he told reporters he thought he had put the committee on the ropes, saying of Mr Coleman: "He's not much of a lyncher."

 

The senators, however, were playing down the confrontation.

 

'A knockout'

 

"This was not a wrestling match," Mr Coleman protested. "It wasn't a contest."

 

Asked his reaction to the "unusual" manner of the witness, he replied: "I was not offended by what he had to say, it was not relevant.

 

"The theatre, the dramatics - I was not looking at that. I had one goal and it was to make a record."

 

The pundits disagreed. One observer of Capitol Hill politics declared the result: "Galloway by a knockout - before round five."

 

Others cast the confrontation as Braveheart on Capitol Hill.

 

But though he left the building professing himself satisfied with his trip to Washington, only time will tell whether Mr Galloway has blown away the allegations he described as the "mother of all smokescreens".

 

Mr Coleman said he didn't think Mr Galloway had been a "credible witness". If it was found he had lied under oath, there would be "consequences", he said.

[foraker]

you know you're in trouble when they start the diversionary witch hunts. guess they don't want people asking why US oil companies were doing exactly the same thing they accuse the euros of doing.

[j_b]

His full testimony is a must watch. Just follow the link in the inital post, go to "Watch highlights ..." on the right and you'll also see "Watch George Galloway's testimony" to the right in the pop-up window. The entire thing is quite long but the highlights do not do it justice, if you can find a way to advance the stream to the ~6th minute (after the charges against him), his opening statement is ~10minutes long and really worthwhile

[JayB]

Yeah! More Galloway!!!!!!!!!

 

"Your Excellency, Mr President. I greet you in the name of the many thousands of people in Britain who stood against the tide and opposed the war and aggression against Iraq and continue to oppose the war by economic means which is aimed to strangle the life out of the great people of Iraq. "I greet you too, in the name of the Palestinian people…..I thought the President would appreciate to know that even today, three years after the war, I still meet families who are calling their newborn sons Saddam…Sir, I salute your courage, your strength your indefatigability. And I want you to know that we are with you until victory, until victory until Jerusalem." (The Times, 20th January

, 1994)

[barjor]

Thats the first true words that have been spoken in that building for a long time. I really recomend people to watch between 6-20 min of his full testimoney

[JayB]

you know you're in trouble when they start the diversionary witch hunts. guess they don't want people asking why US oil companies were doing exactly the same thing they accuse the euros of doing.

 

You know you're in trouble when people don't bother to aquiant themselves with facts before pontificating....

 

Panel says BayOil key in Saddam scheme

Houston firm was 'puppeteer' in oil-for-food scam, investigators say

By DAVID IVANOVICH

Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

 

WASHINGTON - Houston's BayOil (USA) was the "puppeteer" in a scheme to help Russian politicians profit illegally from the United Nations' oil-for-food program and pay kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's regime, Senate investigators say.

[Stonehead]

I don't know if I'm really adding anything of substance to this thread or not, but here's two quotes that oddly seem to apply to many situations.

 

"There are no facts, only interpretations."

--Fredrich Nietzsche

 

"There are facts. Facts matter. You just have to frame them properly."

--George Lakoff

[j_b]

as usual rightwing shills take quotes out of context to discredit the man. the context being that Galloway denounced Saddam's dictatorship since day one, by opposition to Rumsfeld who was in bed with Saddam throughout the 80's. But just watch the full testimony, it says it all.

 

 

as for the oil for food scam, here is the essence of what the committee found:

 

"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.

 

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.

 

"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."

 

link to article

[Stonehead]

as usual rightwing shills take quotes out of context to discredit the man. the context being that Galloway denounced Saddam's dictatorship since day one, by opposition to Rumsfeld who was in bed with Saddam throughout the 80's. But just watch the full testimony, it says it all.

 

 

as for the oil for food scam, here is the essence of what the committee found:

 

"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.

 

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.

 

"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."

 

link to article

 

It seems to me that the task is to identify the individual players or their proxies, whatever their nationality or affliation. It's foolish to indict the entire United States as a guilty party. That just smacks of US bashing. If you're still feeling guilty, just say a few 'mea culpas' and get on with the real task of finding the true culprits.

[j_b]

you are a bit much, frankly. the john birchers who pose as republicans these days are using the corruption in the oil for food program to bash the UN and the antiwar movement as a smokescreen for their dismal failures in Iraq, and as it turns out the majority of the oil for food scam was US bound and all this with our government knowledge. so please ...

[j_b]

so, now that the anti-UN obfuscation has been blown to bits, in particular by the senate committee report cited in previous posts, will the media continue to spew the neocon agenda on the oil for food scam as per usual? will our resident rightwingers continue to make allusions to "how prominent war opponents were on the take"?

 

i think we all know the answer to the above.

[fishstick]

The BBC text at the beginning of this thread actually missed the hardest hitting (best) comments. I STRONGLY recommend finding them.

 

GB

[graupel]

Here is the text:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0517-35.htm

 

Powerful stuff, they are playing audio segments on the radio.

 

I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction.

 

I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda.

 

I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001.

 

I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.

 

Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.

[shuksan]

Actually, your source seems to be a bit of a leftwing shill...

 

Your link to the Guardian says that US oil purchases accounted for over half of the kickbacks paid to Saddam. The Washington Post <link>("Oil-for-Food Benefited Russians, Report Says") makes it clear that there were no US "purchases" and that Bayoil's involvement was to facilitate the Russian's participation in the Oil-for-Food scam. It's true that they made profits on the deal, but they are now under federal indictment (that would be under Bush's Justice Dept.) I'd like to see just what the accusation is that the US Treasury failed to take action against Bayoil at the time.

 

The documents outline a trail of oil and money that leads directly from Iraq to the Kremlin and the former chief of staff to Russian President Vladimir Putin and former president Boris Yeltsin. The report said Iraq sought to influence and reward the Russian government because it sits on the powerful U.N. Security Council that oversaw sanctions against the Hussein government. Russia repeatedly sided with Iraq on issues before the Security Council.

...

At one point, Hussein ordered that Russians be rewarded for threatening in 2000 to veto a Security Council resolution to restrict illicit trade at Iraq's borders, the Senate reports said. The veto threat killed the resolution before it was formally considered, prompting more oil allocations for Russia as well as contracts for humanitarian goods, the documents said.

 

The oil transactions involved a complex web of financial arrangements and middlemen, all of whom received a piece of the profits.

 

Bayoil played a key role in a number of transactions, the report said. The company had conducted an "aggressive campaign" to buy Iraqi oil under the oil-for-food program, but its efforts were stymied by a Hussein policy forbidding direct contracting with U.S. or British companies. Iraq also required the company that purchased the oil to be in the same country as the recipient of the allocation.

 

The report described cases in which Bayoil orchestrated transactions between Iraq and Zhirinovsky. The company arranged for a Russian entity to purchase the oil and, without ever taking possession, sell it to Bayoil. A letter from Bayoil described how the company paid an "agreed premium" to Zhirinovsky for his allocation.

 

The report also described Iraqi documents showing that surcharges, or kickbacks, amounting to more than $4 million were paid to Iraq in connection with Zhirinovsky's transactions. The documents say Bayoil "facilitated" surcharge payments of more than $2 million to Hussein.

 

So you think it's fine that the key anti-war players were all "on the take" from Saddam before the war, just because one US company found it's way in as a middleman?

[j_b]

Actually, your source seems to be a bit of a leftwing shill...

 

actually, the quote from that article is essentially from the US senate document almost word for word ...

 

From the United States Senate:

 

“…during the period surcharges were collected, the United States imported about 525 million barrels of Iraqi oil on which $118 million in illegal surcharges were paid. That means U.S. imports financed about 52 percent of the illegal surcharges paid to the Hussein regime.”

 

“During the surcharge period, Bayoil became the largest provider of Iraqi oil imports into

the United States, importing over 200 million barrels.” (note it’s only half of the imports so bayoil is less than half of the story)

 

“Bayoil fostered corruption of the Oil-for-Food program by facilitating the payment of at

least $37 million in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime on the oil it purchased; engaged in intensive lobbying efforts to influence the pricing of Iraqi oil and to oppose U.S. efforts to use that pricing to stop the illegal surcharges; and participated in an illegal trade boycott of Israel. Bayoil engaged in this misconduct for nearly two years, from 2000 to 2002, without attracting meaningful oversight from any U.S. agency. At the same time U.S. officials were urging the United Nations to institute pricing policies that would prevent the Saddam Hussein regime from imposing illegal surcharges, the United States was itself failing to ensure U.S. corporations such as Bayoil were not paying those surcharges.”

 

“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, as happened in the Khor al-Amaya incident in 2003.”

 

Etc …

 

http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/REPORTwchartsIllegalSurchargesKhoralAmayaFINAL.pdf

 

 

So you think it's fine that the key anti-war players were all "on the take" from Saddam before the war, just because one US company found it's way in as a middleman?

 

 

the list of individuals "on the take" is apparently ~350 names long, people from all over the world (including US citizens). it's no surprise that individuals from countries trading the most with iraq be on that list (duh). it's also no surprise that countries trading the most with iraq were opposed to intervention, especially in light of what we now know for certain. thus, there is certainly no logical thread between having individuals from anti-intervention countries on the list and your assertion that "all key antiwar players were on the take". moreover, i certainly never said or implied it was ok for crooked individuals to be on the take, just don't turn it into a witch hunt against the UN and the antiwar movement especially since US corps profited from the scam knowing full well what was going on (since they paid the surcharge to saddam), that our own government was aware of trading illegal under the sanction regime and did nothing to stop it but in fact facilitated it in some instances.

[shuksan]

From j_b:

just don't turn it into a witch hunt against the UN and the antiwar movement especially since US corps profited from the scam knowing full well what was going on (since they paid the surcharge to saddam),

and from the US Senate report he linked:

The Subcommittee Minority Staff has not seen evidence

showing that U.S. companies knowingly purchased Iraqi oil on which an illegal surcharge had

been paid; in fact, U.S. companies typically included a clause in their contracts requiring a seller

to provide a warranty that no surcharge had been paid.

And Bayoil seems to be the exception as the only US company to pay a surcharge. So we basically have one rogue US company, and no evidence that the US government knew what that company was up to.

 

I implied j_b thinks it's fine for anti-war players to be on-the-take since this thread is called "Need more Galloway!!!" and he seems to be quite a cheerleader for him.

[j_b]

And Bayoil seems to be the exception as the only US company to pay a surcharge. So we basically have one rogue US company, and no evidence that the US government knew what that company was up to.

 

first as i already pointed out bayoil's operations account for less than half of the oil imported in the US. who is responsible for the rest? how were corps able to do what bayoil did even though the UN asked the administration if they had it covered?

 

second, the senate committee seemed to think that it wasn't good enough for galloway not knowing if any of the donation to his charity resulted from oil scams (one of the major contributor had extensive business dealing in iraq). how could it not be good enough for galloway, but be good enough for oil companies to purchase oil obtained through oil for food scamming?

 

thirdly, the senate committee clearly says in its report that the US gov. knew and facilitated sale of oil by saddam that were illegal under the sanction regime. your obfuscations won't change any of it.

 

I implied j_b thinks it's fine for anti-war players to be on-the-take since this thread is called "Need more Galloway!!!" and he seems to be quite a cheerleader for him.

 

some anti-war "players" are not on the take until proof to the contrary and it's going to take more than your unsubstantiated accusations to make it so. I am not especially a cheerleader for galloway, and certainly not for everything he stands for and not for everything he said during his ~30year career, but i am certainly more than bothered when it takes a scotsman to come to the US senate, stand for what is right and easily make fools out of elected representatives in front of the entire world.

[JayB]

That's what this thread really needs..

 

[Stonehead]

No, no, what this thread really needs is...

 

[Dave_Schuldt]

I wish we had poliititions like Galloway. After that spanking I don't think he will be called back.

[Stemalot]

I called this thread "Need more Galloway" because I think we need more politicians who isn't afraid to speak the truth and lash out at hypocracy. I am not a Galloway follower (didn't even know the guy until this article), but I was cheering for the fighting spirit of the guy. The guy's got backbone and that's what most today's politicans need.

[Peter_Puget]

 

Longtime spray readers may recall that when Galloway spoke before the US Senate some of the typical lefties of CC.com fawned over him. Of course they have been strangely silent over the recent revelations concerning him. I love this quote below:

 

Yet this is the man who received wall-to-wall good press for insulting the Senate subcommittee in May, and who was later the subject of a fawning puff piece in the New York Times, and who was lionized by the anti-war movement when he came on a mendacious and demagogic tour of the country last month. I wonder if any of those who furnished him a platform will now have the grace to admit that they were hosting a man who is not just a pimp for fascism but one of its prostitutes as well

 

link

 

 

I would note also that both Coleman and Levin were ridiculed in the article post at the start of this thread and th cc.com lefties seemed to think that Galloway made mince meat of them. But it turns out that both Coleman and Levin simply wanted to enter Galloway's denial of having discussed Oil for Food business with Tariq Aziz in the record. Many commented on this at the time yet the cc.com lefties reading only that which agrees with them could not see the forest thru the trees.

[Dru]

Galloway pledges to take fight to clear name into enemy territory

 

· MP challenges accuser to debate in midwest base

· Demand for perjury claim to be settled by court fight

 

Ewen MacAskill

Wednesday October 26, 2005

The Guardian

 

 

George Galloway is considering taking his fight with Senator Norm Coleman to the Republican's heartland by booking a venue in Minnesota and challenging him to a debate.

Mr Coleman is chairman of a senate permanent sub-committee on investigations that yesterday accused Mr Galloway of lying under oath about Saddam Hussein's multi-million pound oil-for food programme.

 

The senate investigation claimed Mr Galloway, the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, was granted eight oil allocations totalling 23 million barrels between 1999 and 2003. Mr Galloway said he had never received a penny in oil money.

 

Ron McKay, Mr Galloway's assistant, said that a hall could be booked for Minnesota possibly for as early as next week. The two could fly to the US and challenge Senator Coleman to turn up for a debate.

 

Mr Galloway said that the debate was one of a number of options and a final decision had not been taken. "We want to take the fight to the enemy," he said. He expressed little confidence that Mr Coleman would agree to such a debate.

 

Mr Galloway surprised Mr Coleman in May by flying to Washington to confront him directly in the senate over the oil allegations. Last month he flew to New York to debate Iraq with the writer Christopher Hitchens.

 

Mr Galloway described the senate's report as "politically motivated".

 

He also repeated his challenge to Mr Coleman to make his allegations outside the protection of the senate, to accuse him of perjury and let a court decide.

 

"I have no confidence that Coleman will charge me. That would require [Tariq] Aziz [the former Iraqi deputy prime minister being held in jail in Iraq and one of the senate committee's alleged sources] and others appearing in court." He said the senator would be "terrified of that".

 

"If they say they are going to charge me I'll head for the airport and I'm calling for them to do so, begging them to do so," he said. "The charge against me in this sneak attack is that I lied under oath in front of the Senate when I went there in May and trounced this group of lickspittle pro-war Bushites. I am unequivocally stating here and now I'll head for Heathrow now, pausing only to pick up my toothbrush, if they will promise to charge me with perjury. It is very clear what they said, I lied under oath. It is a criminal offence which is what they told me when I swore the oath. It is put up or shut up time. See you in court Senator Coleman."

 

Mr Galloway said: "They have introduced another man of the former Iraqi regime who the US has told us for years was made up of genocidal killers. Tariq Aziz now agrees with the US. He is a genocidal murderer one day then a reputable witness the next." Mr Galloway claimed he was unaware of the $150,000 (£84,000) allegedly deposited into his estranged wife's bank account by Jordanian businessman, Fawaz Zureikat.

 

He added: "These are allegations about my soon to be ex-wife who divorced me on the front page of the Sunday Times five days before the general election, which I was a candidate for, in May this year."

 

Mr Coleman's committee claimed that Mr Aziz had provided evidence, but Mr McKay on Monday night questioned the reliability of information that may have been acquired under duress. Mr Aziz and Mr Galloway are friends. The row will flare again tomorrow when a United Nations investigation, headed by Paul Volcker, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, issues a separate report into companies and individuals round the world alleged to have received oil allocations.

 

Mr Galloway said yesterday that the Volcker inquiry, unlike Mr Coleman, had extended the courtesy of sending its findings relating to him in advance. He said the report repeated allegations similar to Mr Coleman's but concluded he had received no money.

 

The senate committee claimed to have found $150,000 in Iraqi oil money in the bank account of Mr Galloway's estranged wife Armineh Abu-Zayyad, a Palestinian. Mr Galloway said yesterday he was not responsible for his wife's finances.

 

He said she had worked in Iraq for five years, researching claims of an increase in cancer in southern Iraq as a result of depleted uranium used in the US-led campaign to free Kuwait in 1991. In the committee's report Dr Abu-Zayyad is specifically quoted denying she received any money.

 

Ongoing investigations

 

The inquiry by the Senate committee into allegations that the Respect MP George Galloway received oil allocations from Saddam Hussein is not the only investigation. Mr Galloway has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

 

Other investigations:

 

· A United Nation's investigation, headed by Paul Volcker, has been looking at the whole oil-for-food programme. It is due to report tomorrow. It will repeat many of the same allegations as the senate committee but is expected to conclude that it has no evidence that Mr Galloway received any oil money.

 

· A court ruling is expected soon on an appeal by the Daily Telegraph against a successful libel action by Mr Galloway.

 

· Sir Philip Mawer, the parliamentary commissioner for standards - an independent parliamentary ombudsman - is awaiting the outcome of the Telegraph case. He first received a complaint in April 2003 when the Telegraph report appeared but decided to await the result of the libel hearing. A spokeswoman for his office said yesterday that once the court rules, "Sir Philip will seek fresh legal advice on how to proceed".

 

· The Charity Commission conducted an inquiry into Mr Galloway's Mariam Appeal, a charity/campaign against Iraqi sanctions, and cleared it of any wrongdoing. A spokeswoman said yesterday that the commission has not reopened its inquiry but the Senate committee had agreed to send material. She said: "We will then decide whether we need to take any further action."

[Peter_Puget]

senate report

 

LOL what can he do now but continue to spray.

[Stefan]

What is the Mariam Appeal? I do not understand.