posted August 12, 2006 02:11 AM              

on the Israel/Lebanon War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=249JaIaubVw

posted August 12, 2006 12:02 PM              

He is right about the propaganda campaign of the world media in favor of Israel as the "good guys" and any Middle Eastern group that defends their land against illegal Israeli occupation as the "bad guys." It is also true what he says about Israel repeatedly invading Lebanon for the past 25-30 years which is why the Hezbollah were formed to begin with. Hezbollah organized for the explicit purpose of defending Lebanon against the repeated invasions of Israel. While certain uninformed people in the U.S. claim that Hezbollah is an Iranian based terrorist group that is just not true. They have always been from the beginning a Lebanonese based organization whose purpose is to defend their country against Israeli invasion. That is why they were at the southern border of Lebanon. The UN Resolution which was approved today places Lebanon military at the southern border of Lebanon instead of Hezbollah. That is okay unless the UN Security Council in the future attempts to take the capability to defend their country from Israel away from the Lebanonese people. We saw that happen with Palestine.

It was the first time I have heard anyone say what I have felt regarding the overt injustice of the U.S. supplying Israel with nuclear capability to strike any area of the Middle East while not allowing the rest of the Middle Eastern countries the capability of defending themselves from an Israeli strike or pre-emptive take over of their countries.

And yet there are people who wonder why we have terrorists groups in the world. The Irish Republican Army was also depicted by the worldwide media as being a "terrorist" group for defending theirselves against the overt injustice of the British government in favor of the Protestants in Northern Ireland.

In today's world the American patriots who rose up against the injustices of the British in a revolution for justice and equality would also be depicted in the worldwide media as "terrorists."

The fact is that any peoples who are treated unjustly and oppressed will eventually form groups to defend themselves and they will fight against their oppressors.

Stop treating other nations unjustly and without respect and dignity in favor of supporting the oppression of allies and there will be no need of terrorist groups in the world. Palestine would be a very good place to start changing our policies. Seems like a much more reasonable approach to me than fighting violence with violence which only creates more and more violence.

posted August 12, 2006 12:44 PM              

I didn't even absorb the points he was making because I was distracted by how rude and beligerant he is.

posted August 12, 2006 01:51 PM            

George Galloway is also a member of Parliament who took almost a million dollars as a bribe from Saddam to help get Sanctions lifted off Iraq.

That money came from the Oil for Food program and took food out of the mouths of Iraqi citizens.

What a guy but then, Galloway is a hero to leftists everywhere

posted August 12, 2006 02:52 PM              

I on the other hand loved the way he spoke!!!! He cut through the media bs and that reporters obvious bias and presented the truth about this conflict.

posted August 12, 2006 03:08 PM              

By Times Online
May 18, 2005

George Galloway, Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, delivered this statement to US Senators today who have accused him of corruption

"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.

"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 Defence 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 realise 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 **** -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 Haliburton 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."

posted August 12, 2006 03:44 PM              

Anchor person: Joining me now is a man who is not known for "sitting on the fence". He passionately opposed the invasion of Iraq, and now he feels that Hizbollah is justified in attacking Israel. (indistiguishable something) is in our downtown studio. A very good evening, or goodmorning to you, Mr. Gallaway. How do you justify your support for Hizbollah, and it's leader Nasrahlla?

George: What a proposterous way to introduce an item and what a proposterous first question!!

Then he goes on to foam at the mouth about the entire situation, blatantly siding *against Israel on all levels, and *for everything about Hizbollah, being extremely rude to the anchor lady all the while.

She didn't let him bother her though. Classy lady.

That is the conversation I watched. I don't know which video you posted the transcript from, but it isn't this one.

posted August 12, 2006 04:21 PM            

So, Galloway can bluff and bluster, he can lie through his teeth but none of that changes the facts that Galloway took funds from Saddam which were supposed to go to feed Iraqi citizens...and they have the proof he did just that.

There were some French officials who were also on that same list of those being bribed by Saddam.

posted August 12, 2006 04:30 PM              

And he obviously finds an eager audience for it too.

posted August 12, 2006 04:35 PM            

The Senate of the United States can actually prove $446,000 with bank records, money transfers and direct testimony of Iraqi officials.

So, if you want to argue that near half a mil which was supposed to go to feed Iraqi civilians...including children is OK..then be my guest.

George Galloway and the Oil-for-Food Scandal: Time for U.S. and British Inquiries
by Nile Gardiner, Ph.D.
WebMemo #892

October 25, 2005

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) today unveiled new evidence on British Member of Parliament George Galloway’s involvement in the Iraqi Oil-for-Food scandal.[1] This latest report is a direct response to Mr. Galloway’s testimony before the subcommittee on May 17, 2005. Galloway then firmly denied soliciting or receiving allocations of Iraqi crude oil from Saddam Hussein’s regime, but the new evidence indicates otherwise.[2] The Senate report lays the groundwork for criminal investigation, and perhaps prosecution, in both the U.S. and the UK.

PSI’s new evidence raises major questions about Galloway’s close relationship with the Baathist regime and his alleged attempts to raise funds in Iraq to further his political causes in Britain. The report emphatically refutes Galloway’s Senate testimony and concludes that Galloway lied under oath—a serious offence that could result in criminal prosecution under the Federal False Statements Statute.

The serious nature of the allegations merits a reopening of the investigation into Galloway’s activities by the UK Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as well as an independent British judicial inquiry into the involvement of UK politicians and businessmen in the Oil-for-Food scandal. In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice should conduct its own investigation into Galloway’s ties to officials in Saddam Hussein’s regime as part of its broader Oil for Food inquiry.

The Evidence

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation’s Oil for Food investigation was launched in April 2004 and has interviewed scores of witnesses and reviewed several hundred thousand documents. The PSI is a bipartisan committee chaired by Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), and its ranking minority-party member is Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). It has held three hearings so far and issued four reports on the Oil-for-Food scandal.

The evidence for the PSI’s latest report was drawn from several sources:

Banking records, including bank account information and wire transfer data, from several financial institutions “establishing that Fawaz Zureikat, a Jordanian businessman and close friend of Galloway, received money in connection with an oil allocation under the Oil for Food Program and transferred a significant portion of that money to Galloway’s wife and Galloway’s political campaign, the Mariam appeal;”

Documents created by senior Iraqi officials and the Iraqi Ministry of Oil under Saddam Hussein;
Documents created by the Iraqi Ministry of Oil after the fall of Saddam Hussein;

Subcommittee interviews with senior officials of the Hussein regime, including Tariq Aziz, former Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, Taha Yasin Ramadan, former Vice President of Iraq, and Amer Rashid, the former Minister of Oil;

U.S. Treasury Iraqi Financial Asset Team interviews with Hussein regime officials; and

Interviews with experienced oil traders involved in the purchase of Iraqi crude oil under the Oil-for-Food Program.
The Key Findings

“Galloway personally solicited and was granted oil allocations from the Government of Iraq during the reign of Saddam Hussein. The Hussein regime granted Galloway and the Mariam Appeal eight allocations totaling 23 million barrels from 1999 through 2003.”

“Galloway’s wife, Dr. Amineh Abu-Zayyad, received approximately $150,000 in connection with one of those oil allocations.”

“Galloway’s political campaign, the Mariam Appeal, received at least $446,000 in connection with the oil allocations granted to Galloway and the Mariam Appeal under the Oil-for-Food Program.”

“The Hussein regime received improper ‘surcharge’ payments amounting to $1,642,000.65 in connection with the oil allocations granted to Galloway and the Mariam appeal.”

“Galloway knowingly made false or misleading statements under oath before the Subcommittee at its hearing on May 17, 2005.”
George Galloway and Iraq

The Senate report should be viewed against the backdrop of George Galloway’s long and extensive engagement with pre-liberation Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s regime. In the final ten years of the Baathist dictatorship, Galloway visited Iraq more than 20 times, meeting with Tariq Aziz on at least 13 occasions. The Iraqi government was under UN sanction for this entire period and was actively engaged killing or torturing its political and ethnic opponents. Galloway was given extraordinary access to key leaders in the Iraqi regime, and on a 1994 trip to Baghdad famously greeted Saddam Hussein with the words, “Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability.”[3]

Galloway was a vocal critic of the Iraq war, vigorously opposing U.S. and British military action to liberate the Iraqi people. He was expelled from the Labour Party in October 2003, after accusing British forces in a May 2003 interview of attacking Iraq “like wolves.” In the interview, with Abu Dhabi television, Galloway praised the “resistance by the Iraqi forces and Iraqi people who are defending their dignity, religion and country… this is the beginning of a long war of liberation to be staged by the Iraqis against the occupying forces.”[4]

Galloway set up his own political party, Respect, and was returned to Parliament in May 2005 on a fiercely anti-war ticket. Galloway has continued to court controversy since. He blames Prime Minister Tony Blair for the July 7 London bombings, stating that “people in Iraq and London are paying a blood price for Blair’s special relationship with Bush.”[5] He has also continued to make inflammatory remarks about Iraq, prompting outrage in the UK.

In a series of interviews with Arab television stations in August, Galloway expressed his support for the insurgency in Iraq, stating that “the biggest terrorists are Bush and Blair.” In a tribute to the insurgents who are engaged in killing Iraqi civilians as well as U.S. and British forces, Galloway declared,

[T]hey decided, when the foreign invaders came, to defend their country, to defend their honour, to defend their families, their religion, their way of life from a military superpower which landed amongst them. And they are winning the war. America is losing the war and even the Americans now admit it. The resistance is getting stronger every day and the will to remain as an occupier by Britain and America is getting weaker every day. Therefore it can be said that the Iraqi resistance is not just defending Iraq. They are defending all the Arabs and they are defending all the people of the world from American hegemony.[6]

Recommendations for the U.S. and UK

The Senate Subcommittee’s findings merit extensive investigation by U.S. and British government authorities:

A U.S. Justice Department Investigation. George Galloway should be part of the larger DOJ Oil for Food investigation, which has already resulted in several indictments. In addition, federal prosecutors should examine whether Galloway perjured himself in his testimony before the U.S. Senate. Galloway may have violated three statutes under Title 18 of the United States Code:Section 1001 (false statements), Section 1505 (obstruction of justice), and Section 1621 (perjury). Each offence carries up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of $250,000.

A British Parliamentary Inquiry. In light of the latest Senate findings, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Sir Philip Mawer, should reopen his inquiry into the allegations against George Galloway. While under investigation, Mr. Galloway should step down as Member of Parliament for Bethnal Green and Bow. In addition, the UK Charities Commission should re-investigate Galloway’s charity, the Mariam Appeal.

A British Judicial Inquiry. The British government should appoint an independent judicial inquiry into allegations against British politicians and businessmen implicated in the Oil-for-Food scandal. The inquiry should closely scrutinize the findings of the Senate investigations and the UN-appointed Independent Committee of Inquiry (IIC). Prosecutors in Paris have already set a good precedent, charging several French officials with corruption and bribery relating to the scandal.
Conclusion

The Senate inquiry into the activities of George Galloway is the most extensive investigation into a political figure implicated in the Oil-for-Food scandal conducted so far. It may well serve as a role model for further congressional inquiries into politicians with close ties to the former Iraqi regime.

The case presented against Mr. Galloway, based upon exhaustive evidence, is both compelling and disturbing. A British politician stands accused of collaborating with one of the most vile and brutal tyrannies in modern history, allegedly in return for financial support for his political campaigns. This is a scandal that besmirches the reputation of the House of Commons and demands a full parliamentary inquiry. It is also a scandal that deserves to be thoroughly investigated by both British and American prosecutors, who owe it to the people of Iraq to ensure that justice is served.

posted August 12, 2006 04:45 PM            

Of course leftists will just claim the US was out to "get" Galloway to silence his 'noble voice' and all that rot.

***Edit

posted August 12, 2006 05:25 PM              

Im still looking for the other transcript, the one to this video.

I don't think he's is side-tracking people. He is just boisterously expressing what the situation is and what the people who havent been given a voice here already feel.

This is the first time I heard of Galloway, who besides whether he is involved in any scam or not, is speaking truths about the Israel/Lebanon war going on.

I havent really researched into this guy, But from what Ive read online, he very confidently denies any sort of accusations against him.

posted August 12, 2006 08:18 PM              

Iraq experts, ink-aging tests discredit documents behind earlier Monitor story.
By staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor
On April 25, 2003, this newspaper ran a story about documents obtained in Iraq that alleged Saddam Hussein's regime had paid a British member of Parliament, George Galloway, $10 million over 11 years to promote its interests in the West.

An extensive Monitor investigation has subsequently determined that the six papers detailed in the April 25 piece are, in fact, almost certainly forgeries.

The Arabic text of the papers is inconsistent with known examples of Baghdad bureaucratic writing, and is replete with problematic language, says a leading US-based expert on Iraqi government documents. Signature lines and other format elements differ from genuine procedure.

The two "oldest" documents - dated 1992 and 1993 - were actually written within the past few months, according to a chemical analysis of their ink. The newest document - dated 2003 - appears to have been written at approximately the same time.

"At the time we published these documents, we felt they were newsworthy and appeared credible, although we did explicitly state in our article that we could not guarantee their authenticity," says Monitor editor Paul Van Slambrouck. "It is important to set the record straight: We are convinced the documents are bogus. We apologize to Mr. Galloway and to our readers."

Awash in documents

After the fall of Hussein's Baghdad government, stories based on internal Iraqi documents appeared in many news outlets. They detailed everything from mundane aspects of control used by local Baath Party cells to the high living of Saddam Hussein and his sons.

The name "George Galloway" figured prominently in one of the most explosive of these stories. On April 22, London's Daily Telegraph reported that papers retrieved by their correspondent David Blair from the ruins of Iraq's Foreign Ministry described alleged government payoffs to Mr. Galloway, a Labour Party MP and longtime critic of the West's hardline toward Mr. Hussein. The Daily Telegraph report received widespread attention in the European press and throughout the world.

On April 25, the Monitor ran its own piece about papers detailing Galloway's alleged ties to Baghdad. The documents were purported to have originated in the Special Security Section, run by Saddam's second son, Qusay.

However, the Monitor's documents were different in many details from those of the Daily Telegraph, and came from a different source. Monitor contract reporter Philip Smucker obtained them from an Iraqi general, who in turn said he had captured them after his men shot their way into a home once used by Qusay Hussein.

Galloway has emphatically denied that he was ever the recipient of Iraqi largess, a denial the Monitor reported in its original story. He has denounced all stories to that effect, and threatened to sue both the Daily Telegraph and the Monitor for libel.

On May 11, a report in the British paper The Mail on Sunday disputed the authenticity of documents obtained from the same source as the Monitor's documents. The Mail's article said its writer had purchased other documents from the general alleging payoffs to Galloway. Those documents, unlike the Monitor's, included purported Galloway signatures.

"Extensive examination of the documents by experts has proved they are fakes, bearing crude attempts to forge the MP's signature," said the Mail on Sunday's May 11 story.

read the rest

posted August 12, 2006 10:52 PM              

I really don't want this to become a thread about Galloway, but Ive gotta post what I found through google, in response.

It seems like everyone is out to prove him guilty of something. For all the things he's been accussed of he should be locked up in prison by now. Maybe he'll finally be caught soon, when the real evidence shows up?

The Galloway Document:
Proof of Forgery
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/galloway_document.html

Galloway wins damages for Iraq libel
March 20, 2004
The anti-war MP George Galloway yesterday accepted £50,000 damages and a public apology from an American newspaper over a claim he was paid £10m by Saddam Hussein to oppose the conflict in Iraq.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1174075,00.html

Galloway wins libel case over Saddam claims
03/12/2004
George Galloway was awarded £150,000 libel damages against The Daily Telegraph yesterday after a High Court judge ruled that he had been "seriously defamed" over the newspaper's coverage of documents naming him and found in Iraq.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/03/ngall03.xml

Senate accuses two in oil scandal
The Senate names British MP George Galloway and former French minister Charles Pasqua, but gives no evidence either actually received money.
12 May 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4538735.stm

Galloway challenges U.S. senators
Oct 25, 2005
Galloway: "I demand they charge me with perjury and I'll be in the next plane to face it."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/galloway.accused/index.html

Galloway threatens to expose 'fake sheikh'
Wednesday March 29, 2006
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1742346,00.html

posted August 12, 2006 10:57 PM              

George Galloway's interview with Sky News

quote:

---

Anna: Joining me now is a man not known for sitting on the fence. He passionately opposed the invasion of Iraq, and now he feels that Hezbollah is justified in attacking Israel. [Unclear Voice] in our central London studio. A very good evening, a good morning rather to you Mr. Galloway. How do you justify your support for Hezbollah and its leader Sheikh Hasan Nasrullah.

Galloway: What a preposterous way to introduce an item and what a preposterous first question. 24 years ago on the day my daughter was born and I have just celebrated her 24th birthday. I had to dash to the maternity hospital to see her given birth from a mass demonstration in London against the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon. Israel has been invading and occupying Lebanon all of my 24 year old daughter’s life. The Hezbollah are a part of the Lebanese national resistance who are trying to drive, having successfully driven most Israelis from their land in 2000… Israel from the rest of their land and to get back those thousand of those Lebanese prisoners who are kidnapped by Israel under the terms of their illegal occupation of Lebanon. It’s Israel that’s invading Lebanon. It’s Israel that’s attacking Lebanon. Not Lebanon that’s attacking Israel. You’ve just been carrying a report of ten Israeli solders on the border getting ready to invade Lebanon and you ask us to mourn that operation as if it ware some kind of war crime. Israel is invading Lebanon and has killed 30 times…

[Galloway]: more Lebanese civilians than…
[Anna]: You put your finger on the button though didn’t you…

Galloway: have died in Israel. So it’s you who should be justifying the evident bias which is written on every line on your face and is in every nuance of your voice and is loaded in every question that you ask.

Anna: Right… the aa... you put your finger on the button though didn’t you when you said that Hezbollah was set up back in the 1980’s in order to remove every Israeli solder from Lebanese soil as you said they achieved that in 2000.

Galloway: No it didn’t…

Anna: This is a set back.

Galloway: No it didn’t… it didn’t. This is a key point that you’re concealing from your viewers. Israel was forced out of most of the South of Lebanon in 2000. It still occupies a part of Lebanon, since 2000…

[Galloway]: and has thousands of Lebanese
[Anna]: [Unclear Voice] area that is subject to the latest UN draft resolution.

Galloway: Thousands of Lebanese prisoners have been kidnapped by Israel. Hezbollah

[Galloway]: and the Lebanese government wants them to be released.
[Anna]: I spoke just a moment ago to the Israeli foreign ministry spokesman.

Anna: Who said that the three Lebanese who have been captured…

[Galloway]: no… no Ana. Its no good these are not the prisoners…
[Anna]: perhaps you’d like to use that word have been before and judged and been in the court of law

Galloway: Oh, please have a slightly longer memory than 4 weeks. I’m talking about the thousand of prisoners taken during the 18 years of Israeli occupation, illegal occupation of south Lebanon. These are the prisoners that have to be released in exchange for the Israeli solders that were captured at the beginning of this wave of the crisis.

Anna: Can I ask you about a report that’s in today’s Sunday telegraph which says that Iran has given Hezbollah long range missiles capable of targeting any part of Israel. Iran according to this Iranian MP who helped found Hezbollah has also said that he’s…Iran has given the organization… organizati.. autho. authorization rather to target Tel Aviv. Can you blame Israel for wanting to destroy these missiles?

Galloway: This is preposterous! America has given Israel… missiles that can target not just every city in Lebanon but every city in the Arab and Muslim world including Iran. Why should America be allowed to give long range missiles to Israel including hundreds of nuclear missiles

[Galloway]: But Iran is not allowed to give.
[Anna]: because it has given it to a terrorist organization

Galloway: But they are not a terrorist organization. Only in the minds of Rupert Murdoch’s, Sky, and the Times and the Sun

[Galloway]: and the news of the world. They are not a terrorist organization. It’s Israel that’s a terrorist state. Precisely, precisely, precisely.
[Anna]: Oh! come on. I’m going to stop you there Mr. Galloway. Prescribe terrorist organization. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter we know that perfectly well.

Anna: In most people’s eyes they are deemed to be…

[Galloway]: No they are not! They are not! No!
[Anna]: They have a choice didn’t they? Let’s… let’s…

Anna: let’s understand this that they have a choice like the IRA

[Anna]: to take on politics…
[Galloway]: No! no no no. this has nothing to do with the IRA.

Galloway: Listen Ana.

[Anna]: I’m saying that they have a choice to [Unclear Voice] the idea of politics they’ve got two Hezbollah cabinet ministers. You carry on…
[Galloway]: You’re right, you’re right… aa .aaa… are we going to shout over each other.. Ana.. Ana

Galloway: One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. You are totally wrong in saying that in most people’s eyes Hezbollah’s are terrorists. In most people’s eyes Israel is a terrorist state. It’s a fact that you cannot comprehend that fact that leads to the bias which runs through all of your reporting and every question that you’ve asked me in this interview.

Anna: ahun… Can I ask you one question? I was relating to the IRA and Shin fane they’ve decided to embrace politics. Hezbollah had the chance to embrace politics they’ve already got

[Anna]: two cabinet ministers. They’re well respected in the south… …
[Galloway]: What are you talking about! They’re already in politics.

[Anna]: That’s what I’m saying. If you just listen to me!
[Galloway]: They are the people of the south of Lebanon.

Anna: I’m saying they’ve got two cabinet ministers already. They had a chance to do that why did they need to capture and kill the Israeli solders on the border

[Galloway]: Because Israel occupies their country. Look… look…
[Anna]: Surely that’s a set back to their ambitions to be a political force inside a democratic Lebanon

Galloway: because Israel occupies their country and hold thousands of their compatriots as kidnapped hostages in their dungeons. It’s really very simple except if you think only in a clock that goes back four weeks. If you know and you’re old enough to know better that origins of this conflict are not four weeks or four years or fourteen years but decades old. You want people to think that the crisis started when the clock started ticking on Sky News.

[Galloway]: I [Unclear Voice] you. the people of Lebanon know differently
[Anna]: No I don’t… I don’t at all … I want to ask you yeah…

Anna: I want to ask you one final question. Do you think that the four weeks that we’ve seen as you’ve mentioned the 26 days of this crisis has set back Hezbollah’s ambition… ambitions…

[Anna]: not.. not only are Israeli solders over the border. Let me finish…
[Galloway]: That’s why they wage the war… you’re [Unclear Voice]

Anna: let me finish would you mind let me finish please. Not only are Israeli solders over the borders in sizeable numbers but also their claims to be a good political organization to help a democratic Lebanese government with the Syrians who’ve also now left an independent state. That has also come to blows as well.

Galloway: What a silly question… What a silly person you are. Hezbollah is winning the war you can see that on the other half of the screen! (Half of the screen is showing Israeli solders taking the wounded to safer places)

[Anna]: But that was not my question…
[Galloway]: Hezbollah is more…

Galloway: popular today in Lebanon. Amongst Christians, amongst Sunnis, amongst Shiites, amongst all Arabs, amongst all Muslims than it has ever been. It’s Israel who’s lost the war and Bush and Blair for politically organizing the war who have lost politically. This is a defeat for Bush and Blair and Israel. Everybody but you can see it.

Anna: Let me separate out that question then. Is it a set back given that Hezbollah was setup in order to get Israeli solders off Lebanese soil. But there are now more Israeli solders on Lebanese soil than there were 26 days ago.

Galloway: Aa… they seemed to be getting a bloody good hiding on the other half of the screen that I’m watching may be you can’t see it. But I’m watching them getting a bloody good hiding in the war. So if that’s a success, I’m not sure what a failure would look like. The reality is that this conflict will go on. The United Nation’s resolution solves nothing, gives Lebanon nothing, gives the prisoners in Israeli dungeons nothing and as Ann Cluid my [Unclear Voice] colleague was saying Israel has just kidnapped even more Palestinian politicians, cabinet ministers, members of parliament and thousands of others held in Israeli dungeons and this war will continue until the overall settlement is reached. That settlement must mean Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territory that it currently holds since the war in 1967, the release of all political prisoners and a stake for the Palestinians with East Jerusalem as its capital. No justice, No peace. You’re not going out of business as a news caster in Jerusalem any time soon, believe me.

Anna: Well as usual we’ve prompted a huge email response both for and against you Mr. Galloway. So we’ll leave it there I have to say that some people might find it offensive when more families are mourning their dead

[Anna]: to hear you say that it was a [Unclear Voice].
[Galloway]: You don’t give a damn…

Galloway: you don’t give the damn. You don’t even know about the Palestinian families. You don’t even know that they exist. Tell me the name of one member of the seven members of the same family, slaughtered on the beach in Gaza by an Israeli warship. You don’t even know their name. But you know the name of every Israeli solder who’s been taken prisoner in this conflict. Because you believe whether you know it or not, that Israeli blood is more valuable than the blood of Lebanese or Palestinians. That’s the truth and the discerning of your viewers already know it.

---

posted August 13, 2006 01:47 AM            

Testimony of Tariq Aziz, former Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, Taha Yasin Ramadan, former Vice President of Iraq, and Amer Rashid, the former Minister of Oil AND bank records and wire transfers prove you were part of the bribed ones Saddam bribed with Oil for Food money which was supposed to go to feed Iraqi citizens...to the tune of a provable $446,000 at the very least.

Of course, there are those who for political reasons wish to disassociate George Galloway from the butchering regime of Saddam Hussein but it's just not possible. Nor is it possible to suggest Galloway isn't firmly on the side of terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah.

This is the list of trips the far left radical George Galloway made to Iraq...that we know of...and who he met with there.

Nice try attempting to divert the conversation by attempting to disprove what no one here alleged...that Galloway received 10 million of more from Saddam going back to the early 1990's.

The specific charge against Galloway is for the Oil for Food money Galloway received for oil allocations under the program Saddam and others were skimming off the program to feed hungry Iraqis....and for that charge, there is both direct testimony by high officials of Saddam's government AND bank records and wire transfers.

posted August 13, 2006 02:42 AM              

I still give him a standing ovation for blasting that biased journalist with some truth and common sense!

posted August 13, 2006 03:07 AM              

Tariq Aziz, the former deputy prime minister of Iraq, has denied telling investigators that George Galloway personally profited from the UN oil-for-food programme for Iraq.

posted August 14, 2006 01:07 PM              

This George character, on the other hand...now THERE is some seriously obvious and blatant bias there. And perhaps he spoke some truths, but they were incredibly one sided truths, that do not take into account the context of those truths at all. Typical hysterical fundamentalist b.s.. The only version of the truth that matter to them, is their own. The only faults to be found in any conflict, are those of the "other side". They are always playing the innocent persecuted party, but this is utter bull-sh*t and anyone with half a brain knows it.

And why is it that nobody has a problem with the FACT that these groups want to eliminate Israel, and in fact all Jews completely from the middle east? How is it that this objective does not summon up any outrage in you people? You agree that this is a righteous goal? And then you wonder why Israel comes out with such overwhelming shows of force against those who oppose her. THEY TRULY WANT TO DESTROY AN ENTIRE COUNTRY AND IT'S PEOPLE!!!!!!!! They don't mince words about this "goal" either. Everybody knows this is their goal....BUT this is f'cking wrong!!!! This is not a righteous goal!!! And certainly does not promote peace in the Middle East, now does it???