This morning saw the unveiling of the news that, allegedly, George Galloway and former French minister Charles Pasqua were given the right to buy oil under the UN's oil-for-food scheme.

Given that the papers that framed Galloway in past ($10m over eleven years from Saddam), were later proven to be fake, how does this community view this fresh allegation?

Read the article

he probably hid them under his bed with some weapons of mass destruction.

Yes, apparently the former Iraqi vice-president testified that they gave them to him because of his support for Iraq during the war.

How sweet. And all he probably expected was a dozen red roses.

And a free lunch.

no such thing

just like the wmd and the free oil!

and the point of this thread...?

The point of this thread is, as far as I'm concerned, is to gauge whether the members of this forum believe that George Galloway is being "stitched-up like a kipper" because he's the grain of grit in the eye of new labour, because of his stance over the war in Iraq, or if there is a reasonable doubt in their minds as to whether he is capable of participating in the kind of underhanded pocket lining beloved of the Tories.

Obviously, the New Labour mandarins would love to have an early by-election in Bethnal Green and Bow and all they need to do is find something that will stick like shit to George Galloway, so that he has to stand down.

So, is he being fitted-up, or in your opinions, is he capable of this?

Personally I neither like nor trust Galloway but I'm damn well pleased (and more than a little surprised) that he won his seat.

He is of course being stitched up like a kipper and inevitably some of the shit thrown his way will eventually stick. I'm not sure that will lead to him resigning though as he has a long tradition of facing down his political opponents.

It would take conclusive evidence of something pretty rotten to shift him and I don't think they'll find that.

Well Galloway may have met his match in Norm Coleman.

According to the BBC:




I dislike Republicans and Galloway pretty much equally, so I may not watch this particular match. But I think it might get a little bloody. These guys aren't screwing around, and I'm not sure Galloway realises that yet...

Welcome to the NFL, George.

are you kidding? that's a cspan wet dream right there... our assholes and this nutter. i bet it's fantastic tv.

i can't wait to watch. i bet GG gets some good punches in while he's there. that's of course he isn't on some list banning him from flying into the us.

I'm no Galloway fan, but the claim is that he was given the opportunity to do wrong, not that he took up the opportunity. It should be a non-issue, except that somebody's worded it to make it sound like he's done something wrong.

Yeah, I agree with you Joe, except I can also see where they're coming from. They're not really investigating Galloway. He's not the target. They're out to get the UN. Galloway's just a convenient byproduct. If he and this French Senator both accepted millions of dollars in Oil-For-Food vouchers, then clearly the UN wasn't overseeing the program appropriately. The implication will be that the UN is out of control -- which, sadly, it's looking more and more like it was. Run like a corrupt third-world "democracy" it appears.

That's great news for the poor and oppressed of the world.

As for Gruesome George and his French friend, regardless of whether they cashed the vouchers in -- which it appears they didn't -- it's the equivalent of being handed a cheque (or check) for millions of dollars (or pounds) from an enemy of your government and then not telling anybody about it. Regardless of whether or not you cashed it -- you accepted it and then you hid it. I would imagine the tax people will be interested to hear about it if it's true (Siobhan? Are you listening?), and it would certainly go a long way toward making the Telegraph look like, if nothing else, it was on the right track.

I just wonder how far this really goes. I want to know what really happened. I am starting to believe it's true. My instincts say he did it.

But my instincts are usually rubbish.

That's exactly the case. Just because Saddam made the vouchers available doesn't mean GG's guilty by association.

Kinda like when the IRA offered to Robert McCartney's family the opportunity to have the men responsible for his murder killed - just because a nutter makes you a completely mad offer, doesn't mean you are guilty in any way, shape or form.

On PM last night, it sure sounded, based on the reports of people who have fully read the documents in question, that there isn't a shred of evidence to implicate Galloway.

Teflon Tone must be kicking himself that his American mates didn't get their shit together enough to bring this up a couple of weeks ago...

Heard Georgeous George saying the idea of him moonlighting as an oil dealing millionaire was preposterous... course if he'd established more of an alibi by turing up to parliament a bit more often during the years in question people wouldn't be wondering what he actually has been getting upto so much would they?

He looks extremely dodgy to me - course my experience of perma-tanned, sharp suited, silver tongued bon-vivants who go around saying what geat socialists they are includes such characters as Derek Hatton... and of course all the allegations derek was on the make were clearly politicaly motivated tory attacks too. :-)

I think the first question for George to answer was did he accept in principle the offer of the oil vouchers.2. Would those oil vouchers have been used for the charity he set up. 3 .Was the charity legitimate. 4 :If so, why didn't he take up the offer.5:.If he did,is there any proof of oil or money changing hands.

Apropos of little.... Read a quote from Billy in an article posted on the guestbook in which he called Galloway (overly generously I think, but also amusingly), "A good man, fallen among Trots."

I think everyone commenting on this story should read this article by Roy Greenslade (who, as he says there, was sued by Galloway). I think he sets the context and examines the way this is being reported very well.

The US senate's accussations are not just the rehashed claims made in 2003 (although those made in 2003 do represent part of the case).Apparently there is now first hand testimony from some of the former Iraqi regime who were supposidly present when the offer of oil vouchers was made to Galloway.How reliable this testimony is,and how it was obtained from the incarcarated former Iraq top-brass,is another matter.(but they are new allegations)

so often these days the good guys don't exsist.
I don't believe a word that comes from the US (or UK)regarding Iraq -. But Galloway is a nasty piece of work.
When I was a student he approached us at the LSE to support a dissident called Muhummed Al masawi (sorry about the spelling). He was seeking refuge in the UK and the Tories wanted to deport him back to the middle east.
Galloway claimed Masawi was seeking to push for a demoratic change in the Suadi Arabia - he also painted Masawi to be a good man who oppossed the Royal family and was pro democratic change - seeking peace in the middle east. We were also given the impression (as was the media in the UK) that Masawi was a great man almost the new Ghandi..and the west were trying to kill him!!
Naturally we in the LSE Labour movement (who controlled the SU at the time) supported Galloway and pushed the then Head of the LSE Antony Giddens give masawi a job at the LSE to launch his campaing for democracy in his homeland.
This was all well and good - until someone managed to speak to Masawi without Galloway being in the room.
Masawi was probably the worse kind on Fundamentalist there was - Believed that Salman Rusdie should be killed - Believed that the UK was a place of Evil Infidels - believed that all Homosexuals should be stoned then Hung - Women should not work. He also said he did not believe in democracy but in a revolution for Islam - over throwing the Suadi Royals and replacing them with er...Masawi!!
Yet for months Galloway had been his mouthpiece and had suggested that Masawi was a liberal and decent man not another religious nutter filled with hate.
We quickly changed our opinion on Masawi and withdrew out support for his so called democracy campaingn and I tried to contact Galloway to find out what the hell he was doing with such a bigot and a Zealot.
Galloway did not return our calls nor emails...
Who or what is motivating Galloway I've no idea but if anyone thinks for one moment it has anything to do with looking after the everyday people of the Middle East they are mistaken!

That is a very interesting tale, and generally in keeping with the impression I've gotten about Galloway over the last five years. Whether he is just not very bright or so desperately egomaniacal that intellect doesn't play into it anymore, or if he's just a sucker, I don't know.

But I don't believe he belongs in the British Parliament.

That's something I struggle with as well, but, he was elected into Parliment by the will of the electorate, and as such deserves his place there.

His support for Radical Muslims has been a case of record for sometime and is something that should be kept in mind, however, it cannot be forgotten that if we start shouting about his attempts to befriend and understand those of a different faith, even those who oppose the Christian, protestant dominance in the UK [as a Pagan, that includes me], are we not in danger of becoming "probably the worse kind on Fundamentalist"?

Ah, it's a magnificent conundrum, and one that extremists are now using brilliantly to cage us with our own rhetoric. The answer is: I don't know what the answer is. It's the same contradiction by which we have to look at freedom of speech when somebody is calling for our collective deaths, and encouraging the faithful to murder. It's the intrinsic weakness in democracies with strong beliefs in individual freedom that somebody could utilize their individual freedom to encourage repression of women and deaths of gays.

I read in the paper this weekend about an increase in anti-gay attacks in Amsterdam by Islamic youths. Amsterdam has always been a paragon of tolerance -- a place gay people could go and feel safe. Recently the editor of a D.C.-based gay magazine had the shit kicked out of him there, just for walking down the street holding his boyfriend's hand.

I think somebody's not jumping into the melting pot...

So I don't know. My instinctive reaction is to want to hit back. Our intellectual reaction should surely be to put our heads together and come up with a way that we can convince people who live in our nations to respect our lifestyles, while we try to respect theirs.

But I'll never ever get used to the systemized repression of women intrinsic in some cultures. And I'm not sure I should.

actually amsterdam and dutch society has been traditionally overrated as a paragon of tolerance. during the war they had a record of collaboration which has only recently been acknowledged by the dutch and theres always been plenty of racism there. homophobia Im not certain of - but Id look beyond dutch propaganda if I was you. its very convenient for them to try and blame it all on Muslim immigrants not jumping into their wonderful melting pot - but thats just an excuse for a bit of racism. look back further and deeper. but galloway I agree is a twerp. his analysis of world affairs is incredibly superficial and I dont see how he can be regarded as left wing. (just being anti war doesnt make you left wing. saddam was anti war and hes not left wing.)

The BBC has links to the full Senate reports on Galloway, here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4550859.stm

It's a bit of an eye opener. It all goes back to that controversial "charity" Galloway started for the little Iraqi girl with leukemia. Remember that charity? The one that seemed to have a limitless expense account for Galloway? It was largely funded by a Jordanian named Fawaz Zuriekat. The documents related to Galloway and the oil for food program all involve him, that charity and Zuriekat. Galloway's name, the charity's name and Zuriekat, listed as acting as an agent for Galloway, appear on transfer documents for millions of barrels of Iraqi oil. The committee is actually alleging that he cashed in those vouchers, using Zuriekat as his agent, and occasionally under the auspices of the charity, even though none of the money from the sale ever went into the charity, as all of the charity's records were fully analyzed by the British government in an investigation some time ago.

The evidence looks damning. There is definitely a paper trail. And pay close attention to Galloway's language. When the allegations were first made, he kept saying, "It's absurd to say that I made billions of pounds on oil sales". Nobody's alleging that he made billions. Just millions. Today he was playing around with language again on the BBC. He's never saying what you think he's saying. He is extremely careful with his words. Like somebody who is hiding something.

So, the obvious next question is, if he did take part in defrauding the UN Oil for Food program, what is the punishment for that?

That could be due to him being a politician.



This is a random and ill thought through guess at the punishment:

Like any other MP who has been found guilty of narfarious acts involving money, (that lying wanker Aitken immediately springs to mind), he will be tried in a UK court for some new, doubtlessly freshly scribbled piece of legislation, then either electronically tagged or placed, indefinately, under house arrest, or, as he's being questioned in America, he'll be either taken to Guantanamo Bay, made to wear orange (at least it'll match his eyes), chained to a floor and preached at and beated severly. Or, they'l send him of Abu Graib, strip him naked and pile him up with all the other suspects and corrupt politicans (big fucking pile), then have Lindie England point jeeringly at his genitals and the image published all over the world.

Hopefully.

Mata hits most of the points.
Galloway will bluster and answer questions he is not asked.
The case is that he met Zureikat and Tariq Aziz at Aziz' house xmas 1999.
They decided that the Mariam appeal was to be used as a conduit to get money to Galloway.
Zureikat was the middle man and money went through him (£375,000) into the Mariam Appeal.
The accounts were the sent abroad from London to Amman and Bagdhad.
They have not been produced..

Up until this weekend Galloway was claiming that Zureikat had given "about £200,000" but this changed on Sunday when he told the Independent the amount was £375,000 "or so".

Strange that this happened two days before his Senate Hearing and also strange that it is exactly the figure mentioned in the documents the Telegraph printed.

I feel sorry for the people who really believed Galloway actually cared about the starving Iraqi children he was stealing from.



LOL!

That post verged on Siobhanesque -- wish I could have said it quite so well.

Is that "your" Tim up there Mata?

George giving evidence should be entertaining - I doubt they've seen anything like him before.

hope it's televised

Don't think so. He's crazy busy at the moment. Must be an all-new Tim.

Hells no we have not:

Galloway quote:


Sweet Jesus I hope he brings similar rhetoric to the Senate chambers.

it's on the bbc... bring him out!!!!!

It gets ever more interesting. In fact, I'd say almost up the level of "mediocre" now.

I notice that revelations about misbehaviour before/during/after the war are now coming in so fast that the "Downing Street Memo" wasn't considered newsworthy.

Which reminds me, I should have better things to be doing!

That was excellent. A clash of governmental systems.

What did y'all think?

I'd call it a draw -- Galloway got to make his anti-war points, and Levin made him look like an immoral cretin who would take money from a mass murderer.

I think Galloway hit 'em hard when he charged:


And:


And:

Loved George's performance. He was assured, frank and abrupt, in equal measures.I bet the American didn't know what hit them.Someone who speaks his mind and dares say things that other would shy away from.If it wasn't for the fact that i diagree with nearly all his poilical views,he would be my hero.

He did show glimpes of being less than convincing.When he stated that he was a fiece anti-Iraq protester when the West were friendly towards them,and then changes to being pro-Iraq when iraq clashed with the West.His strong hatred of America/Britain/The West didn't come across a entirely rational.Also the question about wether he felt uneasy about his good friend giving a $300,000 sweetener to the Iraqi regime in order to secure oil for food contracts.He struggles with a simple yes or no question that is repeated and repeated to him (re: Paxman).I liked the bit as well when Galloway got so irrate at suggestions that he had met Saddam many times,when it was only on two ocassions.The he quite happily admitted some time later that he had met Taric Aziz about 15 times and was a very close friend. (classic).

But in general he definatly turned the table and had the committee squirming,rather than the other way around.I for one believe him.Either that of he's a superb lier.

That was entertaining.

But I agree with Mata on all this.

And he did so without evidence. How very US Government of him.

Levin? Takes one to know one.

Well, the question was, more or less, "If you knew your dear friend was taking kickbacks from the Iraqi government, would that have concerned you?" and the answer was "I'm not going to answer that question."

So, it wasn't an evidence question, really, it was a morals question. As in, do you have any, Mr Galloway? And the answer to that one is, I think, "Not very many any more."

I'm going to have to go look at this and see if it's more or less. I need a little more (or less) information.

I confess I didn't memorize the question, although my partner might have. I think he kind of fell a little bit in love with Sen. Levin today. I've always kind of liked the guy's sardonic, world-weary approach. It proved a good counterbalance today to Galloway's hyperactive Scottish schoolmaster schtick.

So instead, Carl Levin asks Galloway a "morals" question. My hero. Perhaps now he can ask Bush why he failed to take action against a Texas oil company which facilitated payments of at least $37 million in illegal surcharges to Saddam.

The question that George refused to answer was . 'Would you feel uneasy if '..........'(The head of the charity) was found to have given the Iraq regime kickbacks in order to secure 'oil for food' deals


Or something like that.

It was asked to him at least 10 times,and each time Galloway proceeded to rant for 5 minutes about the Iraq war and totally ignore the question.I was p*ssing myself.What a legend.

Don't get me wrong, zippy, I'm not a fan of the current administration (although, to be fair, Levin is not a member of the Bush administration), and I think they deserve an ass-kicking, but a corrupt, dictator-shoe-licker like Galloway is just not the stand-up guy that the anti-war movement really needs in its corner. It would be nice if somebody who had not hugged Saddam Hussein and counted Tariq Aziz among his good friends, could have said the same thing, and therefore been taken slightly more seriously.

Don't fall for Galloway's rhetoric. He's as mad as a balloon.

He'll only break your heart when he's found giving Kim Jong Il a blowjob in the not to distant future....

Or ask why he's voted with Bush over and over and over again. Strange kind of hero.

The current administration (which like it or not, Levin has not exactly been burning up the airwaves denouncing) has been seen hugging Saddam Hussein and has been seen and documented giving blow jobs to people like Chalabi and every other assassin in the middle east, up to and including Osama bin Laden and you're all sweaty about George Galloway? Yikes.

Joe is right, is anybody upset about the Downing Street memo?

Like I said, I'm no fan of the current administration. I simply don't believe that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I think this particularly enemy of my enemy is a crazy, immoral, thieving dickhead, and I find him a bit embarrassing.

I don't care about Galloway. I do care (but am not at all surprised) that the US government knew about illegal oil sales and kick-backs to the Iraq regime but did nothing about them, and that US oil purchases accounted for 52 percent of kickbacks paid to Iraq in return for cheap oil under the food for oil program.



My heart was broken years ago when the Dems first bent over.

I'm with you on that one, Zippy.