Posted on 05/17/2005 1:27:30 PM PDT by Brilliant
WASHINGTON - British lawmaker George Galloway denounced U.S. senators on their home turf Tuesday, denying accusations that he profited from the U.N. oil-for-food program and accusing them of unfairly tarnishing his name.
Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., questioned Galloway's honesty and told reporters, "If in fact he lied to this committee, there will have to be consequences."
Galloway's appearance was an odd spectacle on Capitol Hill: A legislator from a friendly nation, voluntarily testifying under oath, without immunity, at a combative congressional hearing where neither side showed much pretense of diplomatic niceties.
"Now, I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer, you're remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice," Galloway told Coleman, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs investigation subcommittee.
He then accused Coleman of maligning his name before giving him a chance to defend himself and of using the oil-for-food investigation to hide the failures of U.S. policies in Iraq.
"Senator, this is the mother of all smoke screens," he said.
The panel is one of several congressional committees investigating allegations that Saddam Hussein manipulated the $64 billion oil-for-food program to get kickbacks and build international opposition to U.N. sanctions against Iraq set up after the 1991 Gulf War. The program was created as an exception to the sanctions, allowing Saddam to sell oil and use the proceeds to buy food and other humanitarian items.
Coleman's panel last week released documents that it says shows that Galloway and other international figures received valuable oil allocations from Saddam to reward them for their opposition to sanctions. The allocations could be resold for a profit. Among the officials identified besides Galloway were former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua and Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, both of whom denied wrongdoing.
Coleman's subcommittee claimed that Galloway funneled allocations through the Mariam Appeal — a fund he established in 1998 to help a 4-year-old Iraqi girl suffering from leukemia — and received allocations worth 20 million barrels from 2000 to 2003. Coleman also alleged that Galloway was linked to kickbacks to Saddam, saying the Iraqi leader received more than $300,000 in surcharges on allocations involving Galloway.
Galloway vehemently rejected the accusations.
"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," he said.
He said that Coleman's panel based some of its accusations on the same fake documents used by The Daily Telegraph newspaper, which he sued for libel and won a $1.4 million libel judgment. The committee says it used different documents.
Coleman pressed Galloway on his relationship with Jordanian businessman Fawaz Zureikat. Galloway described Zureikat as the second largest contributor to the Mariam Appeal, while congressional investigators consider him Galloway's intermediary in receiving oil proceeds.
Asked if he knew that Zureikat was involved in oil deals with Iraq in 2001, Galloway said he knew Zureikat was doing extensive business in Iraq, but didn't know the details.
When Coleman reacted skeptically, Galloway told him, "There are lots of contributors to your political campaign funds. I don't suppose you ask any of them how they made the money they give you."
Galloway also said it was "beyond the realm of the ridiculous" that he would give $300,000 in kickbacks to Saddam.
Speaking to reporters after the hearing, both Coleman and the panel's top Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, questioned Galloway's credibility. Asked if Galloway violated his oath to tell the truth before the committee, Coleman said, "I don't know. We'll have to look over the record."
Galloway has been an outspoken opponent of both Iraq wars and of the U.N. sanctions, which he said were killing innocent Iraqis. He was expelled from Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour Party after urging British soldiers not to fight in Iraq. Galloway was recently re-elected to Parliament this month as a representative of his own anti-Iraq war Respect party.
Go on give me the proof you have been trumpeting? I sure wish I had it and so does the UK's Attorney-General and your Senators.
Go on surely you will enjoy showing me precisely what the proof is that he took vouchers from Saddam?
Yes, he was asked in particular about his associate Fawaz Zuriekat. Galloway said he knew Zuriekat had much business in Iraq but Galloway claimed he didn't know anything about oil.
The Senators didn't invite Galloway.
They released some documentation last week to which Galloway's reaction was to race over here and appear.
I thought the Senators did very well, indeed, and really had no wish to keep him around too long so got some things out of him and sent him on his way.
It is clear Galloway's bluster did not trump the hard cold facts the Committee is in possession of.
He probably has evidence on some of them. There were at least 2 that went over to iraq before the war to meet with sadam.
"You can call a man a "brutal dictator" and still do nothing to remove him-- and indeed obstruct his removal. What does this make YOU?
Me?"
Not You-- what does it make Galloway? He's the one we're talking about. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Also, you seem to profess hatred for Galloway yet in the same breath defend him. That's why I said you seem to be spoiling for a fight-- don't know why that necessitates "growing up " on my account.
Why don't you just speak plainly instead of condemning and supporting in the same breath-- as I might add your anti-hero Galloway seems to be so adept at.
You are totally missing the point of the hearing. Did you not hear Galloway tell the Senators that HE told people Zuriekat not only had oli dealings in Iraq but "more than that" that he had ten times more dodgy business other than oil.
The point of the hearing was that NO-ONE has proof that Galloway took any illegal money, not that he had dodgy friends.
George Galloway is the new "Lord Haw-Haw" propaganda broadcaster. He makes me sick.
BTW, Coleman did read that into the record. He did note Galloway has since modified his remarks, but he read the whole sickening letter.
Gotta leave.
Believe me, I wish I didn't have to.
The evidence was entered into the record. Your preferring to ignore that is telling.
Toodles
"Yes, he was asked in particular about his associate Fawaz Zuriekat."
I didn't hear them ask - do you have ANY business with him? etc.
No, I'm not, but you are.
Of course I heard Galloway. LOL
Now I really need to leave. Darn
Galloway should be condemned for what he does wrong, not for what he didn't do wrong.
The whole point of the hearing was not that he had some dodgy friends, or met Saddam or had a crappy tan, but that the senate said he had taken oil-for-food vouchers. He said he hadn't and in fact the Senators had no proof of that.
That was the whole point of the hearing - nothing more.
You would delight in giving me proof of Galloway taking oil-for-food vouchers if you had it.
They just roll up into a fetal position.
"Galloway should be condemned for what he does wrong, not for what he didn't do wrong.
The whole point of the hearing was not that he had some dodgy friends, or met Saddam or had a crappy tan, but that the senate said he had taken oil-for-food vouchers. He said he hadn't and in fact the Senators had no proof of that.
That was the whole point of the hearing - nothing more."
Okay-- in this we are in agreement and I am not hearing double messages.
And to simply restate my belief: I don't think anyone has presented evidence that will convict Galloway of anything, but that doesn't mean his support of Saddam (even while "condemning" him as a brutal dictator) is not despicable.
BTW: "condemning" while obstructing and supporting makes him a two-faced POS, just in case you were wondering.
Who said Galloway wasn't a despicable person?
BTW: "condemning" while obstructing and supporting makes him a two-faced POS, just in case you were wondering.
You can be against someone without willing to tell lies and acting like a zealot. To me that just makes you as bad as him. I will still be condemning Galloway when you have forgotten his name, just as I did when you didn't know his name.
Tue May 17 18:25:47 2005
Hissy Chrissy has Galloway on HardBoiled....
>> Your response.
>> To be accused of a lack of moral character by senator norm coleman is like being told to sit up straight by the hunchback of notre dame. This is a guy who damned me around the world without ever asking me a single question. Without ever meeting me, writing to me, telephoning me. Without even telling me that he was investigating me. And you heard his answer there.
>> He would not answer a particular question about whether you benefitted personly. He did accuse you of benefitting indirectly because a friend of yours gave some money to a charity.
>> This is the $64,000 question. His only answer, when you asked him if i had benefited personly, was to say I must have done it because other people benefited personally. That's simply guilt by association. That's tactics that senator joe mccardsy would be proud of. I'm telling you. I have never benefited by one thing -- one thin dime. I have never bought or sole anything from iraq, to iraq, we emblazoned the support of the man he was talking about as the chairman of our campaign. Throughout all of our literature, long before the war, long before norman coleman was ever held off, we were telling people that we have three been factors. One is the king of the united arab emirates. The other is the crown prince of saudi arabia. The third is this businessman who does big business in iraq. No secret about it. Now if you say to me, it's not right to take money for political campaign from kings and businessmen. You might be right about that. Though I doubt if norman coleman is in much of a position to throw stones about that. But i personally benefited not one thin dime.
>> The charity you care about benefit?
>> It's an charity. It was a political campaign to lift sanctions on iraq. And of course owe glow did that campaign benefit from the vouchers that the saudi arabian government -- rather, did the government of saddam hussein was handing out?
>> Well, i didn't ask the king of the you about I'd arab emirates where he god the money.
>> Did you ask the other man?
>> I didn'T.
>> So you don't know.
>> Let me finish this point. I openly acknowledged at the time during and since, that he was a businessman doing business with iraq in the oil for food program. Now that was a legal trade. He was making some of the money that he made from his whole business empire available to our compaign. I'm glad he did. I'm glad that the crown prince of arabia did.
>> Why is your name on these documents?
>> Anyone can write anyone's name on a piece of paper. But if I had actually lifted oil, bought it, sold it, personally enriched myself, coleman would have been able to answer your question. And he wasn't able to answer your question.
>> Because you didn't make a thin dime.
>> Not one thin dime.
>> Why is he going after you?
>> Because he is the most pro war, pro israel, neo con hawk on the hill.
>> Why is he going after you?
>> I'm coming to that. There's a lot of competition for that title. A lot of competition for that title. And he is smearing the smoke screen. Kofi annan whose dismissal he demanded. Me. President chirac. Anybody that stood against the united states policy on the war, partly for reveferk and partly because it is a useful diversion. That you and I are talking now about this instead of talking about the big disaster that people like norman coleman has taken the whole world into.
>> Iraq.
>> Iraq.
>> Thank you very much. Back with
Reading what I just heard, not 2 minutes ago confirms my suspiscions...Galloway is a slicker than snot con man.
But I'm not watching the rest of Hardball. Matthews drooling all over Queen Noor is just too icky!
Fastest fingers in FREEPERLAND!!....
No, just kidding...my video card has a TV tuner and I can capture the closed caption feed with a nifty software item in the multimedia package. ATI Radeon 9600XT...see it at ATI.com
G
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.