George Galloway's testimony to the senate...

[Tony]

Worth reading over a cup of tea...

Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader, and neither has

anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought

one, sold one - and neither has anyone on my behalf.

Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington,

but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am

here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name

around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without

ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me,

without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice.

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.

 Now I want to deal with the pages that relate to me in this dossier and I

want to point out areas where there are - let's be charitable and say

errors. Then I want to put this in the context where I believe it ought to

be. On the very first page of your document about me you assert that I have

had 'many meetings' with Saddam Hussein. This is false.

I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once 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 have met 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 the better to target those guns. I met

 him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on

the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let 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.

I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments

and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside

the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and

doing commerce.

You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th

March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record

of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the

British or American governments do.

 Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to

quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from the

source is true, that I am 'the owner of a company which has made substantial

 profits from trading in Iraqi oil'.

 Senator, I do not own any companies, beyond a small company whose entire

purpose, whose sole purpose, is to receive the income from my journalistic

earnings from my employer, Associated Newspapers, in London. I do not own a

company that's been trading in Iraqi oil. And you have no business to carry

a quotation, utterly unsubstantiated and false, implying otherwise.

Now you have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names from

Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet

government in Baghdad. If you had any of the letters against me that you had

against Zhirinovsky, and even Pasqua, they would have been up there in your

slideshow for the members of your committee today.

You have my name on lists provided to you by the Duelfer inquiry, provided

to him by the convicted bank robber, and fraudster and conman Ahmed Chalabi

who many people to their credit in your country now realize played a

decisive role in leading your country into the disaster in Iraq.

 There were 270 names on that list originally. That's somehow been filleted

down to the names you chose to deal with in this committee. Some of the

names on that committee included the former secretary to his Holiness Pope

John Paul II, the former head of the African National Congress Presidential

office and many others who had one defining characteristic in common: they

all stood against the policy of sanctions and war which you vociferously

 prosecuted and which has led us to this disaster.

 You quote Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Well, you have something on me, I've

never met Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Your sub-committee apparently has. But I

do know that he's your prisoner, I believe he's in Abu Ghraib prison. I

believe he is 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 Airbase, 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 manage

to get from a prisoner in those circumstances. But you quote 13 words from

Dahar Yassein Ramadan whom I have never met. If he said what he said, then

he is wrong. "And if you had any evidence that I had ever engaged in any

actual oil transaction, if you had any evidence that anybody ever gave me

any money, it would be before the public and before this committee today

because I agreed with your Mr Greenblatt [Mark Greenblatt, legal counsel on

the committee].

 Your Mr Greenblatt was absolutely correct. What counts is not the names on

the paper, what counts is where's the money. Senator? Who paid me hundreds

of thousands of dollars of money? The answer to that is nobody. And if you

 had anybody who ever paid me a penny, you would have produced them today.

Now you refer at length to a company names in these documents as Aredio

Petroleum. I say to you under oath here today: I have never heard of this

company, I have never met anyone from this company. This company has never

 paid a penny to me and I'll tell you something else: I can assure you that

Aredio Petroleum has never paid a single penny to the Mariam Appeal

Campaign. Not a thin dime. I don't know who Aredio Petroleum are, but I

daresay if you were to ask them they would confirm that they have never met

me or ever paid me a penny.

 Whilst I'm on that subject, who is this senior former regime official that

you spoke to yesterday? Don't you think I have a right to know? Don't you

think the Committee and the public have a right to know who this senior

former regime official you were quoting against me interviewed yesterday

actually is?

Now, one of the most serious of the mistakes you have made in this set of

documents is, to be frank, such a schoolboy howler as to make a fool of the

efforts that you have made. You assert on page 19, not once but twice, that

the documents that you are referring to cover a different period in time

from the documents covered by The Daily Telegraph which were a subject of a

libel action won by me in the High Court in England late last year.

 You state that The Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and

1993 whilst you are dealing with documents dating from 2001. Senator, The

Daily Telegraph's documents date identically to the documents that you were

dealing with in your report here. None of The Daily Telegraph's documents

dealt with a period of 1992, 1993. I had never set foot in Iraq until late

in 1993 - never in my life. There could possibly be no documents relating to

Oil-for-Food matters in 1992, 1993, for the Oil-for-Food scheme did not

exist at that time.

 And yet you've allocated a full section of this document to claiming that

your documents are from a different era to the Daily Telegraph documents

when the opposite is true. Your documents and the Daily Telegraph documents

deal with exactly the same period.

 But perhaps you were confusing the Daily Telegraph action with the

Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor did indeed publish

on its front pages a set of allegations against me very similar to the ones

that your committee have made. They did indeed rely on documents which

started in 1992, 1993. These documents were unmasked by the Christian

Science Monitor themselves as forgeries.

 Now, the neo-con websites and newspapers in which you're such a hero,

senator, were all absolutely c**k-a-hoop at the publication of the Christian

Science Monitor documents, they were all absolutely convinced of their

authenticity. They were all absolutely convinced that these documents showed

me receiving $10 million from the Saddam regime. And they were all lies.

 In the same week as the Daily Telegraph published their documents against

me, the Christian Science Monitor published theirs which turned out to be

forgeries and the British newspaper, Mail on Sunday, purchased a third set

of documents which also upon forensic examination turned out to be

forgeries. So there's nothing fanciful about this. Nothing at all fanciful

about it.

 The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial activities

with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact. It's a proven fact that these forged

documents existed and were being circulated amongst right-wing newspapers in

Baghdad and around the world in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the

Iraqi regime.

 Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you

promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing

of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of

them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were

Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis

 with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop

you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told

the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.

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.

 If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if

the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some

kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war

movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today.

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. Have a look at Halliburton and

other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money

of the American taxpayer.

 Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping

out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where?

Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to

hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.

Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed

in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions

busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real

sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own

Government.

[andsome]

Thanks for a very interesting read. I have no love whatsoever for Gorgeous George, but by heck he gave those senators some well deserved stick. I reckon that they have picked on the wrong person here. I wonder if these same senators will apply themselves so energetically to sorting out the gross corruption in their own government. I have serious doubts, there will be yet another massive cover up.

[Belatucadrus]

I think that Galloways handling of some of the funds going through the Mariam Appeal looks decidedly murky, The charities commission is far from happy with the way it's run. Galloways excuse being that as it's not technically registered as a charity, it's OK for him to pay his air fairs from the funds. But he's no fool and Senator Colemans case appears to have several holes big enough to drive a bus through, they'll need to be a lot sharper than that to pin him down.

If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if

the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some

kind of corrupt traitor

Since Kofis little boy Kojo seems to have been bending the rules on the oil deal and describing Chirac as corrupt seems fair enough to me. Galloways soap box speech has its own flaws.

In short they probably deserve each other.

[-pops-]

I dislike Galloway intensely but, I have a great respect for him, even after just his performance as chairman of Have I Got News For You but, especially now.

[Sir T Fireball]

At last, Americas neo-con artists get shown up for what they really are. Boys trying to run with the adults. When it comes to foreign affairs/diplomacy, they are being found to be lacking again and again and again. When will the world unite in smacking them on the back of the legs and telling them to stay within their own borders. Will we never get 'collectively' tired enough of their intereference on the world stage? Meddling in grown-ups business, resulting in hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. Maybe we need to wait for another super-economy to emerge first. One that will replace the cash America throws around like some rich relative trying to buy friendship......hurry up China, we need you!!!

I'm with pops on this Galloway guy. Not a very pleasant individual by most accounts, but due some kudos for giving the senate committee a swift kick in the goolies :D

[andsome]

At last, Americas neo-con artists get shown up for what they really are. Boys trying to run with the adults. When it comes to foreign affairs/diplomacy, they are being found to be lacking again and again and again.  When will the world unite in smacking them on the back of the legs and telling them to stay within their own borders. Will we never get 'collectively'  tired enough of their intereference on the world stage? Meddling in grown-ups business, resulting in hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. Maybe we need to wait for another super-economy to emerge first. One that will replace the cash America throws around like some rich relative trying to buy friendship......hurry up China, we need you!!!

I'm with pops on this Galloway guy. Not a very pleasant individual by most accounts, but due some kudos for giving the senate committee a swift kick in the goolies  :D

:thumbup: :clapping: :clapping:

[dadyassa]

Not frightened to say what he thinks, and a lot of it probably true. ;) ;)

[deuces wild]

I see everyone agrees that he is a blowhard fool.

Just so you know he has made absolutely no impact over here with his rant.

So carry on Georgy boy. :P :lol:

[-pops-]

I think that Galloway doesn't give a fig for the US populace. His intent was directed at the Senate and the American ruling classes but, more important for him, for the UK political system to realise he is there.

He will be a powerful thorn in the side of the new ruling UK government and his "rant" the other day was a warning to those complacent UK politicians that he will be just that - a powerful and painful disruptive influence.

Edited to get my datings more into realityi.e. "the other day" instead of "last week" when, of course it wasn't last week.

[Sir T Fireball]

I see everyone agrees that he is a blowhard fool.

Just so you know he has made absolutely no impact over here with his rant.

So carry on Georgy boy. :P  :lol:

Which 'Georgy boy' are you referring too?

:P

His rant was was a well reasoned argument agains an ill-reasoned attack. As for it having no impact over there......"their's nowt as blind as thems that refuse to see" ;)

[Hurdy]

Like pickled onions.

Thought George was magnificent.

I'm no fan of his also.

[Tankus]

We he did make some sort of impact , as 3 of the national US TV stations went over live after his quote over falling standards in Washington .......

[deuces wild]

We he did make some sort of impact , as 3 of the national US TV stations went over live after his quote over falling standards in Washington  .......

So? How is that an impact? No one trusts the national US News networks anyway.

And falling standards in Washington? Heck, what is new there.....these are politcians afterall. :lol:

Thank goodness politicians in the UK are so saintly. :rolleyes:

[Tankus]

Galloway is a grandstanding political opportunist (I'm being polite) ...but like pops and quite a few others I'm glad his back in Parliament , Particularly now that Dayell and Skinner have left ....It needs an awkward squad

[Hurdy]

So?  How is that an impact?  No one trusts the national US News networks anyway.

And falling standards in Washington?  Heck, what is new there.....these are politcians afterall. :lol:

Thank goodness politicians in the UK are so saintly. :rolleyes:

Instead of ill-defined, blind patriotism/cynicism wrapped up in the Red,White and Blue take a step back.

Why do you have TV stations you can't trust?

Why accept falling standards in Washington with a 'rolls-eye' remark?

Criticise British MPs as much as you like - we do.

[andsome]

So?  How is that an impact?  No one trusts the national US News networks anyway.

And falling standards in Washington?  Heck, what is new there.....these are politcians afterall.   :lol:

Thank goodness politicians in the UK are so saintly. :rolleyes:

Instead of ill-defined, blind patriotism/cynicism wrapped up in the Red,White and Blue take a step back.

Why do you have TV stations you can't trust?

Why accept falling standards in Washington with a 'rolls-eye' remark?

Criticise British MPs as much as you like - we do.

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

[deuces wild]

Instead of ill-defined, blind patriotism/cynicism wrapped up in the Red,White and Blue take a step back.

An absolutely ridiculous statement. But why am I not surprised? :lol:

Why do you have TV stations you can't trust?

As if we have a choice? Recent polls show that over 60% of Americans no longer believe the big 3 news channels.

And you wonder why? Can you spell "Dan Rather"? :lol:

Why accept falling standards in Washington with a 'rolls-eye' remark?

Hmmm, you are right. I guess I should have used this one: :muha:

[Tankus]

heh ... gorgeous is on question time , which has just started on the beeb

[Hurdy]

Instead of ill-defined, blind patriotism/cynicism wrapped up in the Red,White and Blue take a step back.

An absolutely ridiculous statement. But why am I not surprised? :lol:

Why do you have TV stations you can't trust?

As if we have a choice? Recent polls show that over 60% of Americans no longer believe the big 3 news channels.

And you wonder why? Can you spell "Dan Rather"? :lol:

Why accept falling standards in Washington with a 'rolls-eye' remark?

Hmmm, you are right. I guess I should have used this one: :muha:

Lost cause.

You are obviously a politician yourself.

No matter what has been said to you or thrown back at you over the years you completely ignore the content and even the good intentions meant and apply the opposite spin just to justify an 'anti-whatever' stance on things..

I was going to compare you with an ostrich but is it possible for an ostrich to have its head in the sand and up its own arse at the same time?

Happy days James.

[deuces wild]

Lost cause.

You are obviously a politician yourself.

No matter what has been said to you or thrown back at you over the years you completely ignore the content and even the good intentions meant and apply the opposite spin just to justify an 'anti-whatever' stance on things..

I was going to compare you with an ostrich but is it possible for an ostrich to have its head in the sand and up its own arse at the same time?

Happy days James.

Up yours too Hurdy. :D

Politicians.....indeed. :lol:

Try chilling out for a change. :P

Peace brother. Time for a holiday? :P B)

[andsome]

Instead of ill-defined, blind patriotism/cynicism wrapped up in the Red,White and Blue take a step back.

An absolutely ridiculous statement. But why am I not surprised? :lol:

Why do you have TV stations you can't trust?

As if we have a choice? Recent polls show that over 60% of Americans no longer believe the big 3 news channels.

And you wonder why? Can you spell "Dan Rather"? :lol:

Why accept falling standards in Washington with a 'rolls-eye' remark?

Hmmm, you are right. I guess I should have used this one: :muha:

Lost cause.

You are obviously a politician yourself.

No matter what has been said to you or thrown back at you over the years you completely ignore the content and even the good intentions meant and apply the opposite spin just to justify an 'anti-whatever' stance on things..

I was going to compare you with an ostrich but is it possible for an ostrich to have its head in the sand and up its own arse at the same time?

Happy days James.

:D

[bvw]

Argue and debate..........no insults please.

[Tony]

Well if i had know this topic was going to cause so much STRESS, for some members, i would not have bothered posting it.

Chill out guys

Tony

[deuces wild]

I agree. :P

Politics and religion.....always subjects of intense debate. Leave that to the other forums....plenty of those to go around. :D :lol:

[Tankus]

deuces wild

Politics and religion.....always subjects of intense debate. Leave that to the other forums....plenty of those to go around

Its just that your not allowed in them anymore ...!

Dunno ...but Id never thought that I would say it . but Ive got a bit more respect for gorgeous ...