George Galloway!

dearg_doom

I know it's nothing to do with Irish politics, but it's politics none the less.


Did anyone see this guy at the Senate hearing yesterday?

He was on fire! Bad-mouthing Bush with his opening line!!

Some of the journalists behind him were loving it too.

What did ye think?

dathi1

I thought is was brilliant! Even the stateside press gave him full marks. Not mad about his home based politics but on the Iraq war he's spot on. I'd say the Blairites were cringing. Absolute clasic.

Sleipnir

You'd wonder how they thought they'd get away with accusing him without ever having contacted him about it in any way.
I'm so glad he was able to stand tall and crucify them.
Well done Galloway!

meditraitor

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=257645

Check out this

Sparks

The video of the testimony is on the BBC website for those that missed it.

ferdi

oh man, i loved it, fair play to him. he gave it to them full, no punches pulled.

Beruthiel

I listened to it this morning on the radio, have to say I was truly impressed.
he was thoroughly articulate, informed, intelligent, pulled no punches, spoke the truth.
great stuff

mike65

Sound and fury signifying nothing methinks.

Mike.

I saw it last night and heard it again this morning.
And as I said in the thread by Hobbes, I quite enjoyed it.

Galloway has gone up a peg or two in my estimation for his sheer balls and for exposing a few chinks in that senate investigations armour.I got the impression that they werent expecting the vigour and the confidence with which he challenged them.
They underestimated the media heaven that the event was going to bring and the trouncing they were going to receive in the absence of concrete evidence to back up their claims.

I roared with laughter last night when seeing on Fox news no less,the clip where he said " I realise that judicial standards in America have slipped a bit lately but... etc "

The Washington Commentator on ITV news last night declared that he thought they wouldnt be calling him back today-dead right they wont.

mike65

As with football its always a good idea to watch tapes of the opposition before the match! The US system is deferential compared to the cut and thrust of the House of Commons commitee system.

Gorgeous Geroge has always talked a good fight.

Mike.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

he was absolutely brilliant with Paxman on election night aswell - really showed Paxman up for the arrogant twat he is.

DublinWriter

He really socked it to the man. One of the best pieces of political oration I've seen in a while.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

just saw it in full there - that'll teach me to read boards during the day - he was well able to handle himself...

AmenToThat

mike65 wrote:

As with football its always a good idea to watch tapes of the opposition before the match! The US system is deferential compared to the cut and thrust of the House of Commons commitee system.

Gorgeous Geroge has always talked a good fight.

Mike.

The fact that unlike his American counterparts he actually knew what he was talking about also helped.
Well done that man.

dearg_doom

mike65 wrote:

As with football its always a good idea to watch tapes of the opposition before the match! The US system is deferential compared to the cut and thrust of the House of Commons commitee system.

Sorry to sound ignorant, but what do ye mean by 'deferential'??:)



Anyway...

AFAI'm aware, Senate commitee meetings are basically kangaroo courts which can ruin people's reputation without fear of libel suits because 'it's in the interest of the people' regardless of whether their accusations have merit or not. People called to explain themselves basically have to prove their innocence lest the media brand them as guilty. eg the McCarthy era.

Am I wrong, if so how?

Zombrex

TBH it is a bit of a lesser of two evils here ... lets not forget Galloway is a bit of a twat, and he is an apologist for the Sadamn regiem ... if Sadamn had been giving the US Govn. full barrals would we be singing his praises just because we don't like the US Senate?

aodh_rua

Apparently Galloway has been seen as damaged goods in the UK from back before the current scandal. However, I thought his performance yesterday was brilliant, and I'm glad to see someone taking on the US administration and winning.

NewDubliner

aodh_rua wrote:

Apparently Galloway has been seen as damaged goods in the UK from back before the current scandal. However, I thought his performance yesterday was brilliant, and I'm glad to see someone taking on the US administration and winning.

It would be wrong to judge if he 'won' or not US based on European coverage. The yanks have a very different perspective to us. Anyone see how the story was covered by Fox.....?

Lemming

NewDubliner wrote:

It would be wrong to judge if he 'won' or not US based on European coverage. The yanks have a very different perspective to us. Anyone see how the story was covered by Fox.....?

I believe the term "arch-leftie" was phrased by Fox. But to be honest were you expecting anythign else from Fox? I'm surprised they didn't dub out the sound and replace it with "I'll eat yer babiessssssssssss yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"

cdebru

Wicknight wrote:

TBH it is a bit of a lesser of two evils here ... lets not forget Galloway is a bit of a twat, and he is an apologist for the Sadamn regiem ... if Sadamn had been giving the US Govn. full barrals would we be singing his praises just because we don't like the US Senate?

well Galloway denies that he was or is an apologist for the saddam regime

he tackled that yesterday when he gave them a dossier of speeches he had made condemning the saddam regime dating back to before the first gulf war when he was still a friend of the US

uberwolf

In terms of fox news articles here is what I found. It is worth noting however that additional reporting was by the associated press - meaning that it may not be representative of what went out over the air. It however seems to give Galloway scope.

British Lawmaker to Congress: Back Off
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
By Sharon Kehnemui Liss

Ex-Oil-for-Food Prober Called to Testify Before Congress
WASHINGTON — The firebrand British member of Parliament who has been accused of accepting oil vouchers as part of the Oil-for-Food (search) scandal told U.S. lawmakers Tuesday he did nothing wrong and accused the United States of diverting attention from their own crimes in Iraq by implicating him.

George Galloway (search) said he met Saddam Hussein "as many times as [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and give him maps.

"I met [Saddam] to try and persuade him to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back in the country, a rather better use of the meetings than your own secretary of defense," Galloway told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Investigations Subcommittee.

Galloway, who arrived in the United States late Monday night, argued that documents suggesting he got the vouchers are bogus and that the Iraqi officials who ratted him out are lying.

"You have the gall to quote a source without ever having asked me if the allegations were true, that I am the 'owner of a company which has made substantial profits from oil for food,'" Galloway said, noting that he owns no companies besides a media firm in London.

"You had no business to carry a quotation utterly unsubstantiated and falsely implying otherwise," he said. "You've already found me guilty before I have had a chance to come here and defend myself."

Galloway previously told reporters that he feels the accusations are a political setup arranged by the Bush administration and Republicans who strongly supported the president's war in Iraq. He also acknowledged that his relationship with former Iraq Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz (search) was friendly.

Prior to the hearing, Galloway blasted subcommittee chairman Sen. Norm Coleman (search), R-Minn., and his colleagues as being a "group of Christian fundamentalists and Zionist activists under the chairmanship of neo-con George Bush and the right-wing hawks."

Coleman named Galloway as the recipient of payoffs totaling 20 million barrels of oil through the corrupt Oil-for-Food program.

Speaking at the beginning of the hearing, Coleman said Galloway was allotted 20 million barrels of oil to enrich himself in exchange for his support for Saddam Hussein's regime. Majority Counsel for the committee Mark Greenblatt then testified that the barrels came in six phases during the Oil-for-Food program.

"Saddam Hussein's chief lieutenant, Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, confirmed in an interview with the subcommittee that Galloway received allocations. In addition ... Ramadan confirmed that Galloway was granted allocations, quote, 'because of his opinions about Iraq. He wants to lift embargo against Iraq.'"

Other Saddam regime officials confirmed that Galloway received allocations, Greenblatt said. He added that one document "indicates that the recipient of this oil allocation was Mariam Appeal (search), the foundation established by George Galloway, ostensibly to help a four-year-old Iraqi girl named Mariam who was suffering from leukemia. Therefore, it appears that George Galloway used a children's cancer foundation to conceal his oil transaction."

He then said the transactions were conducted through Galloway's agent, Fawaz Zuraiqat, a Jordanian who is president of Middle East Advanced Semiconductor Inc. (search)

Galloway called the accusations a lie.

"This is beyond the realm of the ridiculous," Galloway said, denying additional allegations that Galloway paid $300,000 for surcharges for the transaction through Mariam Appeal.

As he got off the plane in Washington on Monday night, Galloway denied the allegations and said the evidence against him was forged. But in the hearing on Tuesday, when presented with the documents exhibited by Groves, Galloway would not say one way or the other whether he thought the materials were forgeries. He did say the information in them is "fake."

An American Connection

The Oil-for-Food program, which ran from 1996-2003, was designed to let Saddam's government sell oil in exchange for humanitarian goods to help the Iraqi people cope with crippling U.N. sanctions.

But Saddam peddled influence by awarding favored politicians, journalists and others vouchers for oil that could then be resold at a profit.

Coleman's subcommittee has released three reports since Thursday exploring how Saddam made billions in illegal oil sales despite U.N. sanctions imposed in 1991 after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Subcommittee's staffers also testified about other illegal transactions committed by Russian, French and American individuals and businessmen who sought to profit from Iraq's oil trade.

In a report released Monday night, investigators alleged that Washington looked the other way as Texas oil company Bayoil (search) bought Iraqi crude and sold it to American refineries. As a member of the U.N. Security Council, the United States allowed Saddam to pocket billions of dollars smuggling oil to Jordan, Turkey and Syria, it said.

Counsel for minority staff Dan Berkovitz testified that from September 2000 until late September 2002, the Iraqi government demanded that purchasers of Iraqi oil under the Oil-for-Food program pay a per-barrel surcharge to the Iraqi regime. The surcharges were illegal because they raised the sales price of Iraqi oil that was determined by the United Nations. The surcharges were also paid into accounts outside the control of the United Nations, violating U.N. sanctions, Berkovitz said.

Iraq earned $228 million from the surcharges, including about $4.7 million from U.S. company Bayoil and former Russian official Vladimir Zhirinovsky (search), Greenblatt told the panel. In all, Berkovitz said that the 525 million barrels of Iraqi oil — about 660,000 barrels per day — that ended up in U.S. hands during the two-year surcharge period amounted to $118 million in illegal surcharges paid to Iraq by the United States. He pointed out that U.S. money was not paid directly to Iraq, but to oil traders, allocation holders and various other middlemen that served as conduits for the Iraqi Oil Ministry's State Oil Marketing Organization (SOMO).

"This means that oil imported into the U.S. financed about 52 percent of the illegal surcharges paid to the Hussein regime ... These percentages roughly correspond to the percentages of Iraqi oil sent to the U.S. and elsewhere during this period," Berkovitz said, adding that Bayoil appears to be the only company that knew it was paying the surcharge.

Bayoil was responsible for importing 200 million of the 525 million barrels of oil received by the United States, he said.

The committee singled out the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control, which the United Nations repeatedly warned about Bayoil's scheme. It cited an apparent misunderstanding in which U.S. authorities assumed the United Nations would monitor individual companies, while at the United Nations, Oil-for-Food officials thought that was the responsibility of national governments.

The end result was that before the United Nations managed to squeeze out the surcharges imposed by Iraq, the United States failed to stop the illegal payments, Berkovitz said.

"The State Department and OFAC took no additional steps to ensure no American companies were paying surcharges, or even to inquire about the nature of the trade in Iraqi oil. U.S. authorities also failed to respond to requests by United Nations officials for assistance in obtaining information about potential sanctions violations by Bayoil," he said.

cont...

uberwolf

In April, Bayoil USA owner David Chalmers (search) and three other executives were indicted in U.S. District Court for allegedly funneling kickbacks to Saddam. Chalmers has denied any wrongdoing.

But Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., ranking minority member on the subcommittee, said responsibility for the misdeeds extends far beyond Chalmers and company.

"There's a pattern here of erratic and inconsistent enforcement of sanctions on Iraq. On the one hand, the United States is at the U.N. trying to stop Iraq from imposing illegal surcharges on oil-for-food contracts; on the other hand, the U.S. ignored red flags that some U.S. companies might be paying those same illegal surcharges," Levin said.

Aside from Bayoil's alleged violations, Berkovitz said that a different U.S. company that chartered ships for Jordan called the U.S. Commerce Department when it became concerned that a ship was being used to transport illegally 7.7 million barrels of Iraqi oil destined for Jordan, which paid $53 million in cash for them. The company's general counsel was later told by a State Department official that the department was "aware of the shipments and has determined not to take action."

The Russian and French Connections

As for Zhirinovsky, the ultranationalist former parliamentarian traded on his longtime friendship with Hussein and mutual dislike for the West to win 75 million barrels in oil allocations that resulted in profits to Iraq of $8.6 million, according to Greenblatt. Zhirinovsky's distaste for the United States did not stop him from dealing with Bayoil, however, and he assigned his allocation of 5 million barrels "in exchange for a hefty commission" of about $850,000.

In other transactions, Bayoil paid commissions for oil to companies that the committee could not locate or identify. Because Bayoil already had a deal with the Russian and had used code words to describe its relationship to Zhirinovsky, "it is reasonable to conclude that those payments were, in fact, commissions to Vladimir Zhirinovsky," Greenblatt said.

Greenblatt also presented documents that showed that former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua was granted allocations from Iraq, but fearing public scandal, he had his agent, Bernard Guillet, sign for the deal. Guillet was detained two weeks ago for charges relating to Oil-for-Food transactions, he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

sorry for the length, but it's hopefully relevant and represents the American slant on proceedings

jimzx90

I am so sick of this fat little balding man its unbelievable, as for his Billowing of hot air in the senate that was a joke he just kept denying things that he wasn’t accused of. His "business partner" in Iraq is accused of dealing with the oil not him but all he kept saying is I didn’t sell any oil barrels, no dealings with oil blah blah….

This man has a track record of corruption he was investigated in England by the charities boards for apparent disappearance of money when he was involved with a charity and when questioned where the documents for these charities had gone he said they were in Jordan and Iraq and could not be seen. Wtf were they doing there?

This man kissed Saddam’s Ass big time “oh you’re a great leader” he was so full of his own importance. How can you trust a man who looked up to Saddam Hussein?

This man is a charlatan and will be found out mark my words.

The senate let him make his spiel wait for the written report from them Galloway is going down …… he will be found out.

NewDubliner

Lemming wrote:

were you expecting anythign else from Fox? I'm surprised they didn't dub out the sound and replace it with "I'll eat yer babiessssssssssss yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"

I saw a clip on Channel 4 where the Fox narrator spoke over Galloway and described his testimony as a rant. It was like a communist show-trial without the guns.

Sparks

jimzx90 wrote:

he just kept denying things that he wasn’t accused of.

No, he denied what he was accused of and was repeated accused of the same things several times.

His "business partner" in Iraq is accused of dealing with the oil not him but all he kept saying is I didn’t sell any oil barrels, no dealings with oil blah blah….

Not his business partner, a businessman who donated to the charity that Galloway was running. There's a significant difference.

[qutoe]This man has a track record of corruption he was investigated in England by the charities boards for apparent disappearance of money[/quote]
And found not guilty...

when questioned where the documents for these charities had gone he said they were in Jordan and Iraq and could not be seen. Wtf were they doing there?

What were the documents - of a charity to aid Iraqi children - doing in Iraq? :rolleyes:

This man kissed Saddam’s Ass big time “oh you’re a great leader” he was so full of his own importance. How can you trust a man who looked up to Saddam Hussein?

I don't know, how do you trust Rumsfeld?

jimzx90

In 1998 Galloway founded the Mariam Appeal, intended "to campaign against sanctions on Iraq which are having disastrous effects on the ordinary people of Iraq". The campaign was named after Mariam Hamza, a single child flown by the fund from Iraq to Britain to receive treatment for leukaemia. The intention was to raise awareness of the suffering and death of tens of thousands of other Iraqi children due to lack of suitable medicines and facilities, and to campaign for the lifting of the western sanctions that Galloway maintained were responsible for that situation. The campaign won Galloway press coverage, first positive then increasingly negative, as allegations arose that funds were misappropriated and used to pay his wife and driver.

The fund was at the centre of a further scrutiny during the 2003 Gulf war, with allegations of lavish spending on Galloway's regular trips to the Middle East, including first class travel, luxury hotel accommodation, and consumption of expensive champagne and caviare. Galloway, however, denied that he had misused any funds raised for the Mariam Appeal and pointed out that it was not unreasonable for money from a campaign fund to be used to pay for the travel expenses of campaigners

No, he denied what he was accused of and was repeated accused of the same things several times

In May 2005 a US Senate report chaired by Republican senator Norm Coleman accused Galloway along with former French minister Charles Pasqua of receiving the right to buy oil under the UN's oil-for-food scheme.

He was accused of allocations there is a difference........

Not his business partner, a businessman who donated to the charity that Galloway was running. There's a significant difference.

ok so let me get this straight a business man who is involved in the oil for food scandal contributed money to a charity that galloway was creaming off righttt .... and you see nothing wrong with that?

What were the documents - of a charity to aid Iraqi children - doing in Iraq?

this was a charity in England for an Iraq child...... were they in his holiday home/palace next to his golf partner Saddam??

I don't know, how do you trust Rumsfeld?

You dont! nor do you trust George (Greedy) Galloway

Sparks

jimzx90 wrote:

He was accused of allocations there is a difference........

Which would mean that if he said he never owned, bought, saw or sold a barrel of oil, nor did anyone on his behalf, that he's denying the specific accusation, wouldn't it?

ok so let me get this straight a business man who is involved in the oil for food scandal contributed money to a charity that galloway was creaming off righttt .... and you see nothing wrong with that?

I see several things wrong with that, starting with the fact that noone has a shred of proof that it happened. Noone's proven that Galloway was creaming off the funds, noone's proven that the money donated by the businessman came from his oil business (and it's more likely that it didn't, since oil made up a tenth of his business dealings in Iraq).

this was a charity in England for an Iraq child

No, it wasn't. This was a charity started in England. The subsequent chairmen of the charity were not in England.

were they in his holiday home/palace next to his golf partner Saddam??

His holiday home (at €60k it's not a palace) is in Portugal. And he's never played golf with Saddam, he met him twice (as stated by Galloway in his testimony).

You dont! nor do you trust George (Greedy) Galloway

So you can't trust any of the western governments in that case, can you? Not the British, not the Irish, not the French, not the Americans, not the Spanish, not the Russians, not anyone - since they all recognised and supported Saddam at one point or another. Which would mean that Galloway is no better and no worse than them.

jimzx90

Which would mean that if he said he never owned, bought, saw or sold a barrel of oil, nor did anyone on his behalf, that he's denying the specific accusation, wouldn't it?

no

I see several things wrong with that, starting with the fact that noone has a shred of proof that it happened. Noone's proven that Galloway was creaming off the funds, noone's proven that the money donated by the businessman came from his oil business (and it's more likely that it didn't, since oil made up a tenth of his business dealings in Iraq).

no ones proved this no one's proved that heresay conjecture........
like many points posted about many world leaders.
You can argue the no "one has proved anything" point till the end of time he will be found out.

His holiday home (at €60k it's not a palace) is in Portugal. And he's never played golf with Saddam, he met him twice (as stated by Galloway in his testimony).

Dont know where to start teaching you the origin and Intricacies of humour anyway......

So you can't trust any of the western governments in that case, can you? Not the British, not the Irish, not the French, not the Americans, not the Spanish, not the Russians, not anyone - since they all recognised and supported Saddam at one point or another. Which would mean that Galloway is no better and no worse than them.

whats your point ? do you trust any of them ? i dont. just cant stand George Galloway.end of.

mike65

dearg_doom wrote:

Sorry to sound ignorant, but what do ye mean by 'deferential'??:)

http://www.answers.com/deferential&r=67

Too polite really.

Mike.

Padraig Mor

jimzx90 wrote:

no ones proved this no one's proved that heresay conjecture........
like many points posted about many world leaders.
You can argue the no "one has proved anything" point till the end of time he will be found out.
.

So stating, without evidence, that Galloway was 'creaming off' money from a charity is okay with you, but pointing out that there isn't a shred of evidence of such activity is 'heresay (sic), conjecture'. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Lemming wrote:

I believe the term "arch-leftie" was phrased by Fox. But to be honest were you expecting anythign else from Fox? I'm surprised they didn't dub out the sound and replace it with "I'll eat yer babiessssssssssss yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"

LOL .. i read on of the "Opinion" pages on FOX, which are basically where their news anchors go on little rants about this or than, and the on on Galloway was hilarious. He basically said it doesn't matter if the alligation is true or not (ignoring that if it is false the US Senate has some questions to answer) and started personally attacking Galloway, saying that he hates every freedom loving America and even bring up that his wife left him :eek: (implying it was because he is nuts) ... amazing, truely amazing ... I know it was only the opinion section (nearly every news outlet these days seems to have one) but even by Opinion pages style it was really bad