BS: Get Galloway!!

Subject: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 05:39 PM

Norm Coleman, chairman of The Senate Sub Committee on Investigations,has obviously been so hurt by the mauling he received from George Galloway in May, that he has "found" some new information linking Georges estranged wife with money from the "Oil for food programme"

The sources of this new information, are two anonymous "oil traders" and sundry members of the Saddam regime, presently residing in the five star Abu Graibh Hilton.
How this new information was obtained has not been made clear, but the offer of an additional vacation in Uzbekistan has been mentioned.

George has of course denied all the accusations and has asked Mr Coleman to make them in Court "Put up or shut up " says the bold boy.

Finally a "quotable quote" from George.

"To be accused of a lack of moral character by Senator Norm Coleman is a bit like being told to "sit up straight" by the Hunchback of Notre Dame".......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: DougR
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 05:47 PM

I hope Galloway is arrested and brought before an Iraqi court for trial. I also hope that the U. S. Sentate will turn over the evidence they have to the court. Mr. Galloway should have his day in court.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 06:09 PM

I hope the whole UK and USA administrations are arrested and put on trail for war crimes.....Crimes much worse than any of Mr Galloway's alledged misdemeanors....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 07:55 PM

Mr Galloway was certainly friendly with the former Goverment of Iraq. I don't know if it ever crossed the line into anything illegal, and frankly, I don't care. He is a sounding gong, signifying nothing.

When I hear him speak he makes me angry. Again and again, he takes important, valid points, and twists them to serve his own ends, or carries them too far, and so negates himself.

The worst punishment that could be inflicted on someone so full of their own self-importance is to be ignored. I cannot wait for this to happen to both Blair and Galloway. The world will be a better place when it does.

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 02:38 PM

I trust those fans of George (FOGs) on both sides of the pond will recall his support for the Soviet Union and all his good judgment that that support entailed.

Much bad judgment has been made around Iraq but don't trust George.

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: pdq
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 03:25 PM

The Times        October 25, 2005
US Senate 'finds Iraq oil cash in Galloway's wife's bank account'
From James Bone in New York and David Charter in Washington

GEORGE GALLOWAY faces possible criminal charges after a US Senate investigation tracked $150,000 (£85,000) in Iraqi oil money to his wife's bank account in Jordan.

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will refer the Respect Party MP for possible prosecution after concluding that he gave "false and misleading" testimony at his appearance before the panel in May.

The sub-committee claimed that, through intermediaries, Mr Galloway and the Mariam Appeal were granted eight allocations of Iraqi crude oil totalling 23 million barrels from 1999 to 2003.

It will also forward the new information to British authorities, saying it raised questions about Mr Galloway's financial disclosure and the payment of illegal kickbacks to Iraq. "We have what we would call the smoking gun," said Senator Norm Coleman, the sub-committee's Republican chairman.

The sub-committee's report, released today, was provoked by Mr Galloway's clash with the senators — which he turned into a book entitled Mr Galloway goes to Washington. In that encounter, the anti-war MP vehemently denied receiving oil allocations from Iraq.

But the report provides bank account details tracking payments from an oil company through a Jordanian middleman to Mr Galloway's nowestranged wife, Amineh Abu- Zayyad, and his Mariam Appeal fund.

"Galloway was anything but straight with the Congress. He was anything but straight with the American people. There was a lot of bombast. There was a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing," Senator Coleman said. "We take very seriously the importance of testifying honestly before this committee . . ." he said. "We will forward matters relating to Galloway's false and misleading statements to the proper authorities here and in Great Britain."

A Senate aide said that Mr Galloway would be referred to the Justice Department for investigation of possible perjury, false statement and obstruction of a congressional proceeding — all "Class A" felonies carrying a sentence of up to five years and a $250,000 fine.

The report says the Jordanian middleman Fawaz Zureikat, a close friend of Mr Galloway and his representative in Baghdad, funnelled $150,000 from Iraqi oil sales to Mr Galloway's wife and at least $446,000 to the Mariam Appeal. On the same day Mr Zureikat also paid $15,666 to Ron McKay, Mr Galloway's spokesman. Mr McKay could not be contacted for comment last night.

The saga dates back to Mr Galloway's Big Ben to Baghdad tour in September 1999 when he took a red double-decker bus to Iraq. An anonymous "oil trader 1" told the Senate investigators that Mr Galloway asked him at the Rashid Hotel, during the tour, how to translate oil allocations into money.

Another individual, known as "oil trader 2", told the investigators that he learnt in summer 2000 that the Iraqi Government had granted an allocation of oil to someone represented by Mr Zureikat. Oil trader 2 said: "At that time I knew that the individual that Zureikat represented was a British official named George Galloway."

He added: "Officials of the Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organisation confirmed to me that Mr Zureikat represented Mr Galloway in the sale of Galloway's allocations of Iraqi crude oil."

He also told investigators: "The fact that Mr Zureikat represented Mr Galloway with respect to oil allocations and other business in Iraq was common knowledge, understood by many oil traders with whom I had regular contact."

The investigators spoke to Tariq Aziz, the former Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, who told them that Mr Galloway asked him for political funding in allocations in the name of Mr Zureikat. The Senate report shows that Mr Zureikat received $740,000 from Taurus Petroleum on July 27, 2000, as commission for its purchase of 2,645,068 barrels of oil.

The report then reproduces money-transfer documents from Citibank showing that Mr Zureikat sent Mr Galloway's wife $150,000 on August 3, 2000. They conclude that the amount was "largely" Oil-for-Food money because Mr Zureikat's account contained $848,683 at the time, only $38,000 of which did not come from the programme.

Mr Galloway accused Senator Coleman last night of using congressional privilege to attack and smear him.

He said: "I've already comprehensively dealt with these allegations — under oath in the High Court and the US Senate — to the Charity Commission and in innumerable media inquiries."

ALLEGATIONS
*        Mr Galloway's wife, Dr Amineh Abi-Zayyad, received $150,000 from Oil-for-Food allocations

*        Mr Galloway's charity, the Mariam Appeal, received $446,000 from Oil-for-Food allocations

*        A Jordanian middleman and friend of Mr Galloway, Fawaz Zureikat, obtained the money

*        Tariq Aziz, Iraq's former deputy Prime Minister, testified that Mr Galloway asked for oil allocations

*        Mr Galloway "knowingly made false or misleading statements under oath" at the Senate committee in May

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 03:26 PM

There doesn't seem much new in this Senate report, by the press reports I've looked at in the Teleghraph and Guardian. The key stuff seems to consist of statements mentioning Galloway, by Aziz and others facing a possible death sentence, made to the people who might be in a position to get them more favourable treatment if they say the right things.

Meanwhile evidence about people a lot closer to the US administration involved in the kind of thing Galloway is being accused of, but on a far greater scale, appears to be receiving relatively little attention Report claims blind eye was turned to sanctions busting by American firms

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 03:48 PM

respondintg to a criticism of someone you admire by pointing off into the distance to someone you think the person who made the criticism might admire is never a valid way of arguing.

Once we have dealt with a criticism, by either disproving it, or accepting it, then talking about the faults of someone else is fair enough. But not until then. (McGrath)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: pdq
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 03:49 PM

Here is the entire text of the article to which McGrath of Harlow links. See if you can find any mention of the offending firms being American. Seems McRath has the powers to see things that aren't really there:


"The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.

A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: jeffp
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 04:21 PM

You didn't read far enough down the page. Here is more

"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."

There is more beyond this.

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 04:22 PM

when Dick Cheney was head of Haliburton he argued for the right of US firms to access to Iraq's oil industry...
A Canadian man who sold supplies to the Iraqi oil industry (incidentally through a Haliburton subsidiary in the Cayman Islands) was lured to the US for a phony trade show and arrested for breaking US law. His question was why me and not Cheney?
The Haliburton office in the Caymans turned out to be a box and business address in a Bank.
(CBC's Passionate Eye documentary)

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 04:40 PM

pdq, what the hell are you playing at? That is not the entire text of the article McGrath posted a link to.

I read the article, and what you say indicates that either you did not read the whole article—you do have to scroll down a bit—or you are deliberately attempting to mislead those who haven't read the article. It talks extensively about Texas oil company Bayoil and its dealings. Further, the article goes on to say ". . . 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."

I suggest that you go back and take another look. I also suggest that people read the article for themselves.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 05:08 PM

There's a scroll facility on my computer, pdq - if you haven't got one on yours I'd advise you to get it - it'd really handy to have one.
....................

Once we have dealt with a criticism, by either disproving it, or accepting it, then talking about the faults of someone else is fair enough. But not until then.

So that was what I did, Wolfgang. My first paragraph dealing with the allegations against Galloway, my second paragraph talking about the alleged faults of other people.

All right, I wasn't in the business of disproving one set of allegations, or proving the other, and I'm not suggesting thaty my comments amounted to that - what I was doing was merely to point at what appears to me to be a discrepency in the way these two reports are being dealt with. Proof and disproof is a much more complicated matter than can be sorted out in a post on an internet site by someone who has only very limited access to the facts and the evidence - and that applies to all of us.

I think in that post of mine from which Wolfgang quotes I'd have been talking primarily about criticisms made of one Mudcatter by another, where we can in fact reasonably talk in terms of proof, since the evidence is readily available.

However even where proof as such isn't involved, I think it is reasonable to expect that we should deal with a criticism directly before moving on to some kind of counter-criticism; and I hope I normally do that

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 06:05 PM

I may not trust Galloway, but I like his style. I just wish he paid less for his suits.

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 06:19 PM

Memory check for McGrath

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: pdq
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 06:40 PM

When I clicked on the Mc of H link, I got three papagraphs of text. Period. Now I get the whole article. Odd.

McGrath:

You seem to imply that it is just fine for Galloway to pocket 1.5 million dollars in graft because somebody else is worse. That logic has been debunked many times. Even here on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: The Walrus
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 06:48 PM

"...I may not trust Galloway, but I like his style. I just wish he paid less for his suits..."


I just wish he's stayed and refought his seat in Glasgow rather than buggering off to Whitechapel and littering the place up there.
You should have seen the amount of rubblish there was stuck on the walls, dropped on paths and underpasses and flowing out of the bins, all for the "Respect" group (is it big enough to be a party?), all with his face on it.

W

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 06:57 PM

I dont think the American Justice Dept will be in any hurry to give George his "day in court".
The administration will be reluctant to open another can of worms over "Oil for Food".

Personally i see similarities between the treatment of galloway by the press and the Labour party, and the abuse meeted out to Arthur Scargill during the 1984 miners strike.

An attempt was made to blacken Arthur's character with accusations of financial impropriety(remember Robert Windsors testimony to the daily Mirror?)

All accusations against Scargill turned out to be false, but did enough to undermine him in the eyes of the British people.
I think the same game is being played with George Galloway, but George will be no pushover and will continue to point out the real guily men, Blair and Bush...Guilty of causing the deaths of over one hundred thousand Iraqis and wellover two thousand British and American troops.

As george Galloway said on the occasion of his election to Parliament.

"Mr Blair!! All the lies you've told and the people you've killed have come back to haunt you."
The re-election of Blair with a much reduced majority means that we will all continue to be haunted by guilt for years to come , our troops abandoned in a conflict with no end and no way out for Blair and Bush without loosing face, their only redemption will be to withdraw all troops immediatly the new Iraqi govt is elected and leave Iraq to the Iraqis...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 08:32 PM

No, pdq, nobody's saying that it's just fine. But nota bene:

The allegations against Galloway are just that—allegations—and remain to be proven. But it seems that those who are attacking Galloway the most vociferously are more than likely guilty of the very thing they're accusing Galloway of.

Pots and kettles, anyone?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 10:33 PM

I guess the 'establishment' will b gathering 2gether its dirty tricks dept soon to silence Galloway.

ps George get yerself a buulet proof car!- You can ask Cherie for details!

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: GUEST,BOAB
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 11:19 PM

That those poor creatures in the USA have gone to such lengths to 'find something' on a --very--minor politician in the UK,shouts 'pathetic pique' from the rooftops, and says a damn' sight more about those poor petulant repubs than it ever could about narcissistic George!
He may just repeat their humiliation [with ribbons added] I hope he does....

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 11:53 PM

"...possible criminal charges" does not mean he has been found guilty of anything.

Charge him and risk being exposed as rumour mongers or shut up.

I wonder how much torture was involved to get the assorted sources to point the finger at Galloway? Its my understanding that a conviction depends on credible witnesses. I don't know anything about Galloway except that he has guts. Thank goodness somebody does.

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 12:23 AM

"George will be no pushover and will continue to point out the real guily men, Blair and Bush...Guilty of causing the deaths of over one hundred thousand Iraqis"

Is this line still being trotted out, I know it was all over Respect's campaign literature. The figure is inaccurate and misleading and has been rather firmly debunked.

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: Stu
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 05:22 AM

The truth of the matter is Norm is still smarting from the verbal kicking he got from George - they are not used to the rough and tumble of healty debate and don't like to face criticism in public.

"The figure is inaccurate and misleading and has been rather firmly debunked."

Iraq Body Count puts the fiqure at 30028 civilians killed max.

So that's all right then.

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 06:43 AM

Norm is Cheney's lap dog--hand picked to run against Wellstone for Minnesota's US Senate by Cheney himself. He received crony committee appointments unheard of for a freshman senator, and has done absolutely nothing but play mouth for the party line puppet show when it comes to the justifications for the war in Iraq. The oil for food witch hunt is the last hurrah, if indictments are made against White House officials.

Coleman has done absolutely nothing of note as a senator, including heading up this bogus investigation. It is highly unlikely he will be re-elected as things stand now, as the Minnesota Republican party is beginning to slip in popularity locally, just as it is nationally.

It's nice to know one of the Bush administration's original campaign promises--to clean up corruption in Washington--is going so well, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 06:53 AM

How amusing to hear an American pontificating about the importance of honesty. Sounds like the kettle calling the frying pan 'Grimy-Arse' to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 06:54 AM

Sorry - should have said American Politician there.

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 01:48 PM

You seem to imply that it is just fine for Galloway to pocket 1.5 million dollars in graft because somebody else is worse.

I didn't. I implied that allegations ought to be treated as allegations untuil,they are proved, and that the most serious allegations perhaps deserve some priority when it copmes to ferreting out the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 03:17 PM

C'mon now. American politicians don't exactly have the market cornered when it comes to sleeze and dishonesty. Sleeze and dishonesty are generic characteristics of nearly every politician on the planet.

Galloway is a blowhard all the time, so it is difficult to suss out whether he is innocent of the...'claims' by Coleman, or bluffing as a defensive tactic.

The more salient point, already mentioned, is why Coleman feels it necessary to go after this marginalised, washed up
politician from Britain.

Answer: 1) Those were his orders from Cheney. 2) Like it always is with these sorts of power mad politicos, Coleman has made it a personal vendetta against Galloway.

Initial accusations smearing Galloway was a time honored Republican tactic for discrediting your political opposition by demonizing them with the whiff of scandal (see #1 above). That was the initial reason for wagging his finger at Galloway. That is the way Republicans take care of the opposition these days. Prez Cheney said 'sick him' and make him the British face of the most vocal opposition to the war on Iraq, and we'll paint him the same way we painted Joseph Wilson (by making him the right wing's poster child for the 'liberal intelligentsia' opposed to the war. As if Wilson were even remotely liberal.

But! Coleman is also a vicious, vengeful Republican in the Rove/Cheney mold. That is why he is currently in the US Senate, and Cheney's lap attack dog on this committee. He is still furious with Galloway, and trying to save face after being so publicly humiliated by him when he appeared before Coleman's Congressional subcommittee.

Which I have to say, was the best political theatre in Washington since the Livingston bombshell on the eve of the Clinton impeachment.

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 03:53 PM

Excellent analysis GUEST, if a tad cynical!!

I dont expect any of my heros to be perfect, and in George Galloway's case he's as human as the next guy....ego driven.

What I like about George is his ability to inspire by use of rhetoric.

I've said before that we in the UK are too apathetic and cowardly to be inspired to action by anyone.
But I believe there's something in the American people that will respond to an "American Galloway" and they still have the guts and optimism to rid themselves of the parasites who blacken the name of America all over the world......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 11:34 PM

If they attempt to 'get Galloway' they should also get the other 2,200 companies that were playing the oil for food game:

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/051027/w102764.html

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 03:43 AM

"If they attempt to 'get Galloway' they should also get the other 2,200 companies that were playing the oil for food game:"

I am pretty sure they will go after the ones they can dianavan, I believe that one small Texas oil company has already been brought to book. I say that they will go after the one's they can because the bulk of this illegal trade related to the Oil-for-Food programme was connected with Russia and France.

Now just for our own edification what was their stance on Iraq in the run up to March 2003 again. And that stance was adopted out of purely altruistic motives? - Oh I forgot the Mudcat lefty mantra,"UK/USA BAD, Any others GOOD" - Yeah Right.

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: Pied Piper
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 11:44 AM

Watching Galloway run rings round Coleman was some of the best telly I've seen for years; Weasel worded Machiavellian hypocrites should avoid duelling with people more inteligent, erudite and informed than they are.

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:44 PM

Regardless of the "motives" of Russia and France, the war in Iraq has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster just as all the good guys on this forum warned it would.

If my memory serves me well Teribus, you were not in the ranks of the good guys, but skulked in the shadow of the extreme right, most of whom have thankfully deserted the sinking ship.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:54 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:26 PM

"one small Texas oil company" . Presumably that isn't "Texaco, part of Chevron, the US's second largest energy group", which comes in for some pretty adverse comments in the Volcker report featured in this Financial Times story today about "Big oil groups implicated in oil-for-food scandal"

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 04:20 AM

Galloway the best political theatre!
He could bore for Europe.
ee by gum you chaps need a new scriptwriter

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 08:04 AM

Something for you to consider Akenaton

Iraq weapons supply - inventory almost entirely Russian, Warsaw Pact, Chinese and French. Who were the fiercest opponents to intervention in the UN - France, Russia, China. They sold to Saddam at ten times the going rate on items across the board, no wonder they didn't want this rather comfortable arrangement to be disrupted.

As to being on the side of the good guys, or bad guys, that is a purely a matter of from whose perspective you view the situation. Along with the great majority of Iraqi citizens I would rather see Saddam Hussein deposed than have him still in power. According to the will and wishes of what you see as being the 'good guys' Saddam Hussein would still be in power and the population of Iraq would have nothing to look forward to except the succession of his son, who by all accounts was a very nasty and vicious piece of work.

If you say that the UN would ahve done something without the prompting of the USA and the UK, you blithely ignore that organisations track record. About one year ago the Secretary General stated that the situation in Darfur was the single most serious problem facing the world. Twelve months later what have they done about it - apart from basic cosmetics and empty promises absolutely nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 12:33 PM

To be effective, the U.N. needs the support and co-operation of the United States. Unfortunately, the U.S. is more interested in unilateral power. They have also managed to deploy the military might of several other member nations.

Its a matter of priorities and the U.N. cannot go it alone. Any action in Darfur must be supported by all member nations. If they are in Iraq fighting the Bush war, how can they help in Darfur?

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 02:09 PM

Teribus...I hesitated to say that you were an outright supporter of the war.
Your stance still seems a bit ambiguous.
In a perfect world nobody would want Saddam Hussein or George Bush in charge of a bicycle never mind a country.

The important point is that the war was sold to the British and American people on the grounds that Saddam had WMDs and was a "real and present danger to us"

It has become clear that these grounds were patently false and we have all become complicit in a criminal act against humanity.

Do you really think we are doing a better job of keeping the mad fundamentalists at bay than Saddam?
The majority of the Iraqi people want the occupiers out.
How much democracy do you think the people of Iraq will enjoy under Sharia law?

As I said earlier,I thought you realised the dangers of invasion and did not commit yourself to full agreement....Perhaps I was wrong..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 02:35 PM

Ake 'inspiration by the use of rhetoric' has been the stock in trade of many a would be dictator/world dominator, a certain A Hitler springs to mind in this context. George may or may not make the trains run on time as per a certain B Mussolini, but I wager he is destined to become as much of a figure of ridicule as that particular Italian gelding.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 02:52 PM

Jock...Somewhere in the far future we are all destined to become "figures of ridicule".

I'm sure our great great grandchildren will look back on our present plight with some amusement. "How could they have been so stupid" they will say, "how could they have allowed themselves to become enslaved to economic systems which obliged them to murder one another for the benifit of their masters. And they thought they were so clever, intellectuals every one. They would even write about their foolish political theories on that old communications network, trying to explain to one another why their lives were so miserable, consisting mainly of a never ending scrabble to survive.

And the pathetic thing is...the poor buggers thought they were free"...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 07:28 PM

There are actually any people who believe anything that Norm Coleman has to say. Amazing. Or for that matter, the majority in the US Senate?

It's another form of Neo-Con smear tactics. They will not make their shit stick.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 08:53 PM

Akenaton you didn't need to hesitate. It was obvious that the stage as set by Saddam Hussein meant that a war was inevitable - only thing was that Saddam was hoping that that the UN would be deflected by 'popular opinion' and the likes at the 'peace at any price' brigade. Unfortunately he ran into someone witha bit more resolve than the 'West' normally displays, someone who was prpepared to back up the chat with action. Counter to what you believe the majority of Iraqis are pleased that Saddam has gone - had you and your fellow travellers been given their way Saddam would still be in power and you lot would be arguing for the UN sanctions to be lifted.

By the bye Ake what did Saddam want with those 384 rocket motors? After all he could have squandered the cash required for that transaction on something that might have benefited the people of Iraq in general.

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 08:53 PM

From Reuters:

"Former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz has denied telling investigators that a maverick MP personally profited from the U.N. oil-for-food programme for Iraq, Aziz's lawyer said on Saturday.

U.S. congressional investigators said this week they had evidence that George Galloway had profited from the defunct U.N. programme created to protect Iraqis from the harsh effects of sanctions against their government.

The report said Aziz, under questioning by the subcommittee, said he had discussed oil allocations with Galloway and confirmed a letter in which the MP requested a bigger oil allocation.

"These are lies ... he (Aziz) denied this," Badia Aref told Reuters."

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 09:04 PM

we've bought one or two rocket motors in this country with money that could have been better spent

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 01:16 AM

Forget it, Lads and Lasses. There are, it is glaringly obvious, those who would applaud GW bush no matter what shitty ploy he [nominally] led. The up front spokespersons in the U.N. asssembly haven't dared as yet to slap the TRUTH down on the table;the United Nations Organisation is, and ever has been, a mere tool of convenience for the puppeteers of the more acquisitive elements in the U.S.of A. On only one occasion were the forces of Uncle Sam ever close to being 100% participants in a U.N. operation, and that was in the matter of maintaining a land bridgehead on the continent of Asia, namely in Korea. A genuine United Nations force was deployed there. Anybody care to examine the composition of the "residue" of this force still hanging around South Korea today? Darfur doesn't concern Bush and co. Materials are much more important than people, especially in foreign climes. Who has any doubt at all of what would happen if the US had to make a choice between the real United Nations Org. and the purely militaristic North Atlantic Treaty Organisation? They could make that choice tomorrow, by the way, and be certain of the fawning compliance and co-operation of Tony Bliar and his henchman-of-Straw. But no- body else of any material import, thank God.So the good folks who are persistently attempting to counsel the inexplicably right-wing brainwashed who are still [again inexplicably]professing support and approval of the Whitehouse-Pentagon-Tony and the Creeps conglomerate should simply give up, and see if they continue, in mutual congratulation, to contribute the pro-war claptrap to this thread.
I'm finished with it, anyway. You can't talk to stone walls.

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 12:45 PM

Boab - I disagree with the statement: "Darfur doesn't concern Bush and co."

I think it is in U.S. interest to ignore Sudan and especially Darfur so that they can maintain relationships with the present Sudanese government. Once the people of Darfur are displaced, the pipeline business will begin. Lets also remember that the present Sudanese government is a partner in the war on terrorism and the U.S. gains valuable information from them. The U.S. has nothing to gain by helping out in Sudan. In other words, the U.S. is very concerned about Darfur. It is in their best interest to ignore and/or encourage the displacement and starvation of the people.

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 06:41 PM

Teribus..I'm surprised that you as an ex army man are content to leave our troops in Iraq, with the security situation worsening daily and polls taken by the coalision which say that over 60% of Iraqis see the occupying forces as "legitimate targets" for the insurgency

Why are we there?   The elections being lauded at present as "fledgling democracy" are in fact a means of marginalising the Sunnis and handing power to the Kurds and Shia.
Al Sistani and his fellow mullahs have been very clever, and don't have any doubt where the power will lie after the elections.

As usual, we with our short sighted agenda have backed the wrong horse and the Shia will ally with Iran.
The very thing this war was supposed to prevent.

As far as getting our troops out is concerned, our politicians are talking of a phased withdrawal "When the Iraqi forces are ready", but what about the Americans...our allies.
It is quite obvious that they intend to keep a permanent military presence in Iraq for many years to come . If not, why are they presently constructing four huge army bases in the country?

So do we stay for ever as sitting ducks, poorly armed and poorly protected to show solidarity with our "allies"

Blair's rash decision to ride piggy back with bush into Iraq could cost British soldiers lives for years to come ,but that won't bother Blair, who will be out of office in less than a year and will probably settle down comfortably to write his memoirs.

That should take him ten minutes and half a page of foolscap...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 07:39 PM

Ake - I don't think the U.S. should get off so easy as to pull out their troops. I actually think they are obligated to stay and train Iraqis to repair the infrastructure. I also think they are obliged to pay for it. Why should they be allowed to go home without cleaning up their mess?

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 08:15 PM

Teribus, you mean Bush & Co did it all for the poor downtrodden folk of Iraq? My goodness, what sheer selflessness. An example to us all.

Pdq, are you sure about that figure of $1.5 million?

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 08:20 PM

As I stated in my last post Diana, I dont think the Americans have any intention of withdrawing.

I think there is a long term agenda at work here, but it looks doomed to failure unless we are prepared for full scale slaughter of the Iraqis (dont discount that).

When all the lies were being told and the ground work done to "sell" the war, no one in the American administration realised the strength of Iraqi nationalism. This conflict like Vietnam, will go on till the occupiers are forced to withdraw..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 08:24 PM

Vietnam?
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: pdq
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 08:31 PM

That figure came from a radio report where several other bank transactions were discussed.

Rather than spend any time on it, I will withdraw the statement.

In the same news broadcast, Galloway was asked to explain the $150K given to his estaranged Palestinian wife. His reply was a very rude-sounding "she's not my chattel". He did not deny that money went to her, however.

About Tereq Aziz, seems his lawyer has told him not to testify about anything or anybody. His congressional testimony is withdrawn and he will not say a word against Saddam Hussein in the up-coming trial. Aziz, at 69, says he expects to be let free to go into exile. He will say what he has to say in a book.

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 08:35 PM

Peter...I dont think Teribus responds to irony...Too many years of "square bashing" I suppose.
Seriously, I had given him the benefit of the doubt over Iraq but it appears from his last post that either he's lost the plot or is in denial.

The odd thing is that our troops are going to be exposed to a higher level of danger the longer we are involved....To no good purpose.
You'd think Teribus would have more regard for his ex-comrades..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 08:43 PM

Jock...Small but defiant country in South-East Asia, famous for booting Uncle sam's arse till his nose bled..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: Wolfgang
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 09:54 AM

(opinion piece in the Guardian)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Get Galloway!!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 01:22 PM

It's the Little Dutch Boy complex that Uncle Sam suffers from, can't see a hole in a dyke without wanting to put his finger in it.
Doesn't matter who the dyke belongs to!!
Giok
[Dyke in the old sense of the word!!]