George Galloway

Did anyone from the US see, hear or read about George Galloway’s testimony in the senate hearings?

I’m not the greatest fan of Georgy but even the papers over here that usually hate him seem to praise his performance-

The newspapers all agree that George Galloway - in the words of the Express - came out all guns blazing when he faced his accusers in the US Senate.

It was a powerful performance, the Times says, while the Telegraph describes an assault on Capitol Hill.

The Financial Times acknowledges blistering testimony, while the Guardian lauds street fighting form.

The Sun admits a barnstorming performance, while the Daily Record says the MP "spanked the Yanks".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4557717.stm



Here are a few quotes –

"The real sanctions busters were your own companies, with the connivance of your own government."


"As a matter of fact I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is that 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 an end to sanctions, suffering and war."


"You launched an illegal war that killed hundreds of thousands of people,"

On Senator Norm Coleman "I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in Washington but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice."

 

I'm much like you - not a great fan, but he really ripped into them..

Full transcript is here..

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

Steve.

 

Yes I downloaded the archived webcast of the whole smokescreen hearing. Galloway, for all his other faults, was indeed spot on in holding a mirror up to these hypocritical mouthpieces for Washington's own wanton international criminality.

Of course, in true neocon fashion they refused to hear anything but what coincided with their own duplicitous views. Like dogs with bones they are.

 

Galloway did what he is good at - grandstanding and bluster. He simply practiced the same evasion he practices at home. What the hearings showed is that either the committee didn't particularly care about Galloway or they just wanted him to lie under oath so they could follow up later. My suspicion is the former; his real troubles will be in the UK.

For someone who saluted Saddam Hussein's "courage and strength" to lecture anyone on Iraq is just theatre. Not that there isn't an audience for that. There is Balbus to happily pull the good quotes.

There is Lick who says

Well, why were there democrats on a neocon committe? Why did Democrat Carl Levin

...(according to the Guardian) if they refused to hear anything which coincided with their own duplicitous views? No room for such complexities in your world, right Lick?

 

**

Oh but Point what do you want me to do ‘pull’ the bad and uninteresting quotes? -)

I got those quotes form several newspaper sources the ones they published, I was looking around for a complete transcript when Thestroon posted one.

For fuck sake Point get a sense of perspective won’t you?

I’m not a great Gallowy fan as I said but I do think that this hearing (like many that have gone before) has got more to do with political posturing than the seeking of ‘justice’ or ‘truth’. For that reason I think it funny that they got a taste of their own medicine from a master of political posturing.

**

 

The interesting thing to me is that this was the lead article on many news programmes last evening? He is praised for his bravura performance by many papers this morning. People have being chuckling about it at work.

There is the feeling by many here in Britain that he gave the ‘yanks’ a deserved black eye. I may not like it but I think his stock especially amongst the young has gone up.

 

Obviously Point is too busy avoiding any scrutiny of our own government (his stock in trade) to realise that "neocons" are not exclusive to the Republican Party. The term refers to all those, running throughout both corporate owned Parties, who subscribe to Straussian ideological teaching. Levin, pro-Israeli zionist puppet that he is, is quite at home with the PNAC agenda and those whom it serves.

Time you looked past party labels to the much more rampant and deep rooted corruption of our own Government, if you can pull your head out of your tabloid drenched hole long enough to confront reality.

Fact is Coleman and Levin with him presented nothing more than the same sort of contrived "evidence", from the same long exposed fraud (aka Chalabi) himself, upon which they themselves breached numerous counts of international law in prosecuting War of Aggression. For they or any others on Capitol Hill or the Executive Branch to presume themselves credible arbiters of anyone else's alleged breaches of international law (when they have clearly stated its inapplicability to anything Washington intends to perpetrate and have mocked the UN itself as irrelevant) only makes further mockery of our nation.

 

Right Balbus, i.e. "I'm not a fan of Galloway"... but let me pull all the favorable quotes and all the favorable headlines? Thanks for the perspective which apparently I am lacking.

I take your point, and in the short term this has only helped Galloway. But mine is that for political purposes this committee is being belittled into a "Republican committee" that needs George Galloway to tell them the truth. But as I pointed out, in fact the committee itself has been critical of US involvement in the oil for food corruption. The zealots here, such as LickHerIsh, don't want this more nuanced reality to become apparent and instead refer to committee members as "pro-Israeli zionist puppets".

Lick, why would a "pro-Israeli zionist puppet" spend much of his opening statement attacking the hypocrisy of the US government in allegedly allowing American firms to benefit from Iraqi oil corruption? How does this not refute you claim that the committee refused to hear anything which coincided with their own duplicitous views? It makes no sense and you simply heap invective on top of lies to keep you nonsensical argument going.

 

The arch liar of these boards follows his mentors' lead in claiming others guilty of their own low standards.

Upsetting to you as it is, Galloway did vindicate himself admirably and did indeed shine the spotlight on the lack of real investigative confirmation of the rubbish they are citing as any sort of "evidence".

As for opening remarks, lets see how far that goes in indicting this administration on their much more prevalent examples of corruption and then we'll see who Levin actually serves. Word of caution, don't hold your breath waiting for it.

Keep trying, youll get your head out of fantasy land one of these days.

 

**

But Point you know I read the Guardian, Oh and Point I just cannot resist doing a selective quote because I’m just such and evil man - so here it is

“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.”

**

US 'backed illegal Iraqi oil deals'

Report claims blind eye was turned to sanctions busting by American firms

Julian Borger and Jamie Wilson in Washington
Tuesday May 17, 2005
The Guardian

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.
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.
The report is likely to ease pressure from conservative Republicans on Kofi Annan to resign from his post as UN secretary general.
The new findings are also likely to be raised when Mr Galloway appears before the Senate subcommittee on investigations today.
The Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow arrived yesterday in Washington demanding an apology from the Senate for what he called the "schoolboy dossier" passed off as an investigation against him.
"It was full of holes, full of falsehoods and full of value judgments that are apparently only shared here in Washington," he said at Washington Dulles airport.
He told Reuters: "I have no expectation of justice ... I come not as the accused but as the accuser. I am [going] to show just how absurd this report is."
Mr Galloway has denied allegations that he profited from Iraqi oil sales and will come face to face with the committee in what promises to be one of the most highly charged pieces of political theatre seen in Washington for some time.
Yesterday's report makes two principal allegations against the Bush administration. Firstly, it found the US treasury failed to take action against a Texas oil company, Bayoil, which facilitated payment of "at least $37m in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime".
The surcharges were a violation of the UN Oil For Food programme, by which Iraq was allowed to sell heavily discounted oil to raise money for food and humanitarian supplies. However, Saddam was allowed to choose which companies were given the highly lucrative oil contracts. Between September 2000 and September 2002 (when the practice was stopped) the regime demanded kickbacks of 10 to 30 US cents a barrel in return for oil allocations.
In its second main finding, the report said the US military and the state department gave a tacit green light for shipments of nearly 8m barrels of oil bought by Jordan, a vital American ally, entirely outside the UN-monitored Oil For Food system. Jordan was permitted to buy some oil directly under strict conditions but these purchases appeared to be under the counter.
The report details a series of efforts by UN monitors to obtain information about Bayoil's oil shipments in 2001 and 2002, and the lack of help provided by the US treasury.
After repeated requests over eight months from the UN and the US state department, the treasury's office of foreign as sets control wrote to Bayoil in May 2002, requesting a report on its transactions but did not "request specific information by UN or direct Bayoil to answer the UN's questions".
Bayoil's owner, David Chalmers, has been charged over the company's activities. His lawyer Catherine Recker told the Washington Post: "Bayoil and David Chalmers [said] they have done nothing illegal and will vigorously defend these reckless accusations."
The Jordanian oil purchases were shipped in the weeks before the war, out of the Iraqi port of Khor al-Amaya, which was operating without UN approval or surveillance.
Investigators found correspondence showing that Odin Marine Inc, the US company chartering the seven huge tankers which picked up the oil at Khor al-Amaya, repeatedly sought and received approval from US military and civilian officials that the ships would not be confiscated by US Navy vessels in the Maritime Interdiction Force (MIF) enforcing the embargo.
Odin was reassured by a state department official that the US "was aware of the shipments and has determined not to take action".
The company's vice president, David Young, told investigators that a US naval officer at MIF told him that he "had no objections" to the shipments. "He said that he was sorry he could not say anything more. I told him I completely understood and did not expect him to say anything more," Mr Young said.
An executive at Odin Maritime confirmed the senate account of the oil shipments as "correct" but declined to comment further.
It was not clear last night whether the Democratic report would be accepted by Republicans on the Senate investigations committee.
The Pentagon declined to comment. The US representative's office at the UN referred inquiries to the state department, which fail to return calls.



**

 

And I will go further, having once again reviewed Senator Levin's opening comments. Though, as you rightly point out PB, Senaotr Levin does make mention of US Government "failures" in enforcing sanctions, at no time does he explicitly apply the term "corrupt" or "corruption" to the Bush administration, nor is the suggestion ever made that such mere "failures" (or as he puts it, "oversight") stemmed from any likely associated profits accruing to members of this administration.

His invective is reserved solely towards Bay Oil and Saddam's regime, despite clear knowledge of the extensive oil interests of a the majority of key cabinet members and the President himself. It would not be surprising to learn, and I continue to delve for information on the matter, that members of this administration were indeed large shareholders in Bay Oil, Millenium or any other US firms profiting from the backdoor trading.

So aside from some rhetorical finger wagging, the bulk of the Committee's smoke and mirrors "investigation" remains rooted in documents of suspect authenticity and authorship, especially in light of the known criminal currently presiding over Iraq's oil ministry, a well known Bush admin cohort.

 

That's interesting Balbus - so first it seems we need Galloway to tell us these things, then when I point out that US investigations are not about posturing or run by "pro-Israeli zionist puppets" and in fact have criticised US actions and provided revealing information about US complicity, you turn around and paste an article about the findings of a Senate committe which say exactly the same thing. Anyway the point is change the subject from Galloway to US guilt, right?​

Why, because he came in and denied everything? This makes him "admirably vindicated"? Seems you are setting the standard a little low. He never offered anything more than evasions. Why did he move Mariam appeal documents out of the country? Why are Mariam appeal documents still not available two years after he said he would hand them over? These questions were never asked or answered. They asked him about the oil documents and he denied any knowledge of them. Whoopee.

The committee cannot indict anyone, so you are asking the impossible based on your ignorance. Has Galloway been indicted? No. ​

But lets follow up on Levin being a "pro-Israeli zionist puppet that he is, is quite at home with the PNAC agenda and those whom it serves". According to www.ontheissues.org, ​

Levin Voted NO on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. ​

Levin signed the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimous report on Iraq, which amongst other things said that

• The CIA mischaracterized Iraq WMD & abused intelligence position.​
• Iraq had al-Qaida contacts, but no complicity or assistance.​
• CIA knew State of the Union Iraq-Niger connection was false.​
• Iraq was not reconstituting its nuclear program.​
• Iraq was not developing its biological weapons program.​
• Iraq was not developing its chemical weapons program.​
• Iraq was developing missiles, but not to reach the US.​

Are these the actions of a "pro-Israeli zionist puppet that he is, is quite at home with the PNAC agenda and those whom it serves"? Or is this just your hatemongering and zealotry? Stop digging yourself a deeper hole.​

 

The Committee cannot "convict" anyone, PB. "Indictment" is a matter which they are quite capable of in its rhetorical sense. Yet they refrain from turning their investigative powers on this administration and merely shrug it off with a mere comment as "their inability to get an answer from those to whom they put questions". Not a very active exercise of checks and balances from the very institution which seeks the power to overturn Supreme Court rulings and even go so far as to impeach Justices who oppose the administration's illicit meddling in the judicial process.

As for Levin, I suggest you examine his entire voting record on issues pertaining to Israel as well as his willing receipt of AIPAC political contributions (which have been as high as nearly $500,000) and then we'll see where the logical trail of his senate voting leads.

One issue does not overturn a career of playing to Israeli interests. Moreover, if you actually had any intellectual honesty whatsoever, you'd realise and acknowledge that no Senator not duly in line with the Israel-lobby would ever rise to the Chair of the Armed Services Committee. If you fail to see that, you know nothing about beltway politics.

 

Hilarious. Rhetorical indictments? So you're only wrong in the legal sense of indictment? By that measure Levin has already "rhetorically indicted" the administration, you're just trying to weasel out of another screw up. Grasping for straws, as always.

The logical train of his Senate voting led to a vote against the war, stop obfuscating. Pro-israel PNAC zionist puppets would not vote against the war and sign damning reports on the intelligence backing it. You can dance around that point all you want, but his actions speak louder than your words. At this point the only principle you are standing for is that you are never wrong, no matter how much the facts are against you.

 

If you have trouble with the non-judicial meaning of the term "indict" then you are the one with the challenged vocabulary, though youve already shown yourself to be a weasel par excellence in any discussion, so little surprise there.

Levin did not "indict" nor level any mention of the term "corruption" toward this administration. His carefully mediated terminology went no further than than mere "oversight", which suggests a mistake or failure, not outright complicity and criminality.

Keep deluding yourself and tap dancing away from any real scrutiny of our own home grown criminality, we all know how you disdain your civic obligations in favour of emulating your mentors' penchant for pointing the hypocritical finger everywhere else.

And again, ducking away from acknowledging the measure of Mr. Levin based on his career voting record in the Senate. The single issue junkie in you just can't see past the tabloid spin can it?

Well, for those with rational minds, and any knowledge of how positions of power in Congress are secured or lost, let the contribution record of Mr. Levin by AIPAC speak for itself...

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2002/11/33321.shtml

Seems you wouldnt know a fact if it bit you on the ass, dear little shill. And your knowledge of politics of zilch beyond regurgitating Murdoch misinformation.

 

I am quite clear what the meaning is. It means nothing, which is why you have backtracked to this from "indict" in the meaningful, legal sense. I am not going to argue over whether he rhetorically indicted someone as the concept is meaninglessly vague.

This is what you do. First you claim that the committee "refused to hear anything which coincided with their own duplicitous views", then when I prove the committee in fact did criticise the administration, you say that "having once again reviewed Senator Levin's opening comments" (once again? nice try) you note that they didn't indict anyone. When I say they can't indict them you say they should rhetorically indict them which is of course intended to steer the debate into a bog of your "interpretation" of indict and so on. This moronic moving target argument of yours grows tiring very fast. No thanks.

Meanwhile, Carl Levin is a "pro-Israeli zionist puppet" who is "quite at home with the PNAC agenda". I pointed out that such a characterisation is hardly fitting for someone who voted against the war and signed reports highly critical of the intelligence used to back it, but you point out that he gets money from AIPAC. What matters is how he votes, and I showed how he voted. You can link to AIPAC stories until the cows come home, he voted against the war and he was party to highly critical reports. If he takes AIPAC money and still votes against the war and criticises the administration's claims, this reflect favorably on his independence, not unfavorably. Back to the drawing board, Lick.

 

No PB, what gets tiring is your nitpicking of terms which you wish to impose your own meaning upon rather than the sense in which they are employed. Moreover, you apply this same nitpicking to suggest your argument is substantiated upon the basis of one single issue. As such you never discuss anything nor admit you might not possibly have a clue as to what youre talking about, which has been abundantly evident in every thread you tiwst and divert and subsequently derail.

But then my interactions with you are little more than a means of blowing off a day's accumulated stress, since nothing you post offers much more than the same excusatory blather one can watch for themselves on CNN or any other network news program.

"Obfuscation" is your favorite word clearly due to the fact that any examination of the reality of the political arena, its players, their interests and motivations is too complex for your sanitised cognitively dissonant mindset. Best you go return your head to your hole in the ground where its safe.

 

I see that it does not mention the 'oil for food programe' ? after hearing Mr galoway a media programe over here talked to a few 'cynics' about this whole situation and what Mr galloway was saying.. basicaly i think they were saying that given kofi annan was 'in charge' and had quite a lot of money to investigate the above alegations why did he not.. also why given that it was to stop saddam profiting from oil is it seen as americans turning a blind eye.. it is a deeply complicated matter for sure, i just got from it (though sadly not expressing it very well here) that fundemenatly it was for the right reasons. It is difficult to remember when people speak 'off the cuff' so i apologise for not being any more lucid.

 

Galloway's performance was superb. He told it like it is.

 

His performance was superb.. but did he realy tell it like it is.. 'Rat can you figure out what i was trying to say in my earlier post ?. Or LikHERish (any one, will be cool ?).