Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Galloway vs. The US Senate: Transcript of Statement
Times Online ^ | May 18, 2005 | George Galloway

Posted on 05/17/2005 11:00:31 PM PDT by echoBoomer

Galloway v the US Senate: transcript of statement By Times Online 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 cock-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."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: 109th; britishmp; galloway; iraq; lyingcommiecrook; oilforfood; oilforfoodprogram; ussenate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last
To: nopardons
Well, hi, nopardons- and a Tip O' the Hat to you--
21 posted on 05/18/2005 1:20:33 AM PDT by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: backhoe

Hi,my dear friend. Back from vacation and btting your posts, as usual. :-)


22 posted on 05/18/2005 1:22:28 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: echoBoomer

Go Coleman Go.

That said, you know what woulda been really, really cool? To have ZELL MILLER going at this guy. THAT would have been fun. I'd have taped that and watched it over, and over, and over again.


23 posted on 05/18/2005 1:23:12 AM PDT by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

Nothing speaks for itself. The general public doesn't "get it" unless you smack them upside the head, repeatedly, and rub their faces in it.

Coleman should have kicked this guy's teeth in.


24 posted on 05/18/2005 1:24:09 AM PDT by California Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot
Well, Galloway lied, so maybe he'll get some kind of censure, since I doubt that American Senators can really do anything else to a non-citizen.

But you're correct about having to beat most Americans about the head, to get them to pay attention.

25 posted on 05/18/2005 1:28:48 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

Yeah, and if anything, most senators are even dumber.


26 posted on 05/18/2005 1:52:04 AM PDT by California Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot

Yes, they most assuredly are that. :-(


27 posted on 05/18/2005 1:54:00 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
The very first person I ever heard described as a "Neo-conservative" was Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Funny, she doesn't look Jewish.
28 posted on 05/18/2005 2:51:18 AM PDT by Hugin (Hold muh juicebox and and watch this!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: echoBoomer

Galloway was on Charlie Rose...PBS tv...late last night. Nonstop lies from Motormouth Galloway. He never took a penny. He's an idealist. The US went to war to steal Iraqi oil, blah, blah, blah.


29 posted on 05/18/2005 2:56:45 AM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the_Watchman

Galloway's bank account shows huge deposits from Iraqi connections.


30 posted on 05/18/2005 2:57:49 AM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: hershey

No they dont - -If they did he would never have won his libel cases against The Telegraph and The Christian Science Monitor


31 posted on 05/18/2005 3:44:40 AM PDT by weegie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot
Galloway wanted them to look bad by loosing it, They did the right thing, this guy is a chancer, and the money he got is obviously funding Muslim interest somewhere else, It was a bit like getting hauled up in front of the Head Teacher, the French and Russian wont come, Galloway couldn't resit it really says it all .
32 posted on 05/18/2005 3:47:52 AM PDT by lillybet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Christ is Hillary

The actual definition of a neo-con is somewhat complicated.

Neoconservatism is a somewhat controversial term referring to the political goals and ideology of the "new conservatives" in the United States. The "newness" refers either to being new to American conservatism (often coming from liberal or socialist backgrounds) or to being part of a "new wave" of conservative thought and political organization.

Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are characterized by an aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and a greater acceptance of the welfare state.

Neoconservatism is a controversial term whose meaning is widely disputed. Most people described as "neoconservatives" are members of the Republican Party. The term is used more often by those who oppose "neoconservative" politics than those who subscribe to them; indeed, many to whom the label is applied reject it. The term is sometimes used pejoratively, especially by the self-described paleoconservatives, who oppose neoconservatism from the right. From the left, Democratic politicians have used the term to criticize Republican policies and leaders, recently those of the George W. Bush administration.

Critics of the term argue that the word is overused and lacks coherent definition. For instance, they note that many so-called neoconservatives vehemently disagree with one another on major issues. They also point out that the meaning has changed over time. Whereas the term was originally used for former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but aggressively opposed the Soviet Union, now the term is primarily used to describe those who support an aggressive worldwide foreign policy against radical Islam and terrorists. The term is also used to descibe those who are accused of adopting a "unilateral" foreign policy rather than relying on United Nations concensus and actions.

As a rule, the term refers more to journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and institutions affiliated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and with Commentary and The Weekly Standard than to more traditional conservative policy think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation or periodicals such as Policy Review or National Review. The neoconservatives, often dubbed the neocons by supporters and critics alike, are credited with or blamed for influencing U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981–1989) and George W. Bush (2001–present). Neoconservatives have often been singled out for criticism by opponents of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many of whom see this invasion as a neoconservative initiative.


33 posted on 05/18/2005 4:25:24 AM PDT by Perdogg (Cheney for President - 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: hershey

"Galloway's bank account shows huge deposits from Iraqi connections."


Is this evidence or just your opinion? It does beg the question why isn't it in the senate report. Source/link please!


34 posted on 05/18/2005 5:14:01 AM PDT by Brit_Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: lillybet

I don't think our senators should have been out-of-control. They should have ripped this guy a new one. Those are two different things. If a factual, well-constructed, angry attack on an evil person amounts to "losing it," then we might as well fold up and go home.


35 posted on 05/18/2005 12:53:12 PM PDT by California Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

Pat always has a grain of truth in what he says but takes it too far. One could argue why not let the Commies and Nazis kill each other off?


36 posted on 05/18/2005 2:58:35 PM PDT by Lord Nelson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: lillybet

He's a lawyer. Need we say more.


37 posted on 05/18/2005 2:59:39 PM PDT by Lord Nelson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Brit_Guy
You may be right. We just hate this self-righteous bastard. In the end that may be all he is. Maybe he will trip over an Arab in his riding and cut his head open.
38 posted on 05/18/2005 3:02:13 PM PDT by Lord Nelson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Lord Nelson
That's exactly what Pat argued, but that wouldn't have worked out all that well either. And don't forget, the Japanese DID bomb Pearl Harbor.
39 posted on 05/18/2005 8:41:21 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: echoBoomer

Political views

He has a reputation as a fiery left-winger. He is an advocate of redistribution of wealth, greater spending on welfare benefits, and extensive nationalisation of large industries. He opposes independence for Scotland. He supports the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. As a practising Roman Catholic he is personally opposed to abortion, although he supports RESPECT's policy of promoting a woman's right to choose. He supported the equalisation of the age of consent for homosexuality. As a Labour MP he was a member of the Socialist Campaign Group. In the 2001 Parliament he voted against the whip 27 times, placing him as the 9th most rebellious MP.

Galloway has attracted most attention for his comments on foreign policy, taking a special interest in Libya, Pakistan, Iraq and Palestine. His support for the Palestinian cause began in 1974 when he met a Palestinian activist in Dundee; he converted the rest of the Dundee Labour Party which flew the Palestinian flag over the Town Hall and twinned the city with Nablus. His involvement with Iraq began after the war in 1991 when he visited the country to observe the effects of United Nations sanctions.

In an interview with the Guardian, Galloway outlined his political views in relation to the Soviet Union:

"I am on the anti-imperialist left." The Stalinist left? "I wouldn't define it that way because of the pejoratives loaded around it; that would be making a rod for your own back. If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe."


40 posted on 05/18/2005 8:42:04 PM PDT by Rome2000 (Peace is not an option)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson