Galloway dismisses new $10m claim as 'farce'

Times of London ^ | April 25, 2003

[Shermy]

On or off Galloway ping list:

Newly found Iraqi files raise heat on British MP**More than $10 million! (The Christian Science Monitor ^ | April 25, 2003)

[Dog]

Keep digging George.......keep digging!

[Shermy]

Galloway seems to have hired Ritter’s spin team.

George Galloway told us today that he thought the alleged wording is bordering on farce and is more like a Private Eye spoof."

What makes Galloway an expert on the wording in Iraqi govt. documents?

The newspaper claimed that documents uncovered in a Baghdad house used by Saddam's son Qusay detailed orders for six payments to Mr Galloway between July 1992 and January 2003 totalling more than $10 million. "These allegations are also totally untrue," Davenport Lyons said in a statement. "George Galloway did not visit Iraq before 1993 and has never met Qusay Hussein or even heard of any of the other people whose names are supposed to be mentioned in the documents.

Nice deflection. Galloway’s visit is not a prerequisite to being paid, or being recruited as an agent of influence. The fact he never met Qusay is another grand deflection - so what? Did Aldrich Aames meet any Soviet leader?

"George Galloway has not received any money from Saddam Hussein's regime in return for his support or any other reason and he intends to take legal action in respect of the publication of these false allegations. He hopes that the British media will not further disseminate them under the guise of public interest or otherwise."

The “guise” of public interest. That’s some guise.

This afternoon, speaking from his holiday home in Portugal, Mr Galloway said: Mr Galloway said of the 1992 date: "(At that time) I had never set foot in the country (Iraq), not met an Iraqi leader and they had probably never heard of me."

Very clever statement, not false but verisimilitude. He wouldn’t be recruited by a “leader.” An Italian site quotes “The Telegraph also alleges that the deal was arranged at a meeting between Mr Galloway and an unnamed Iraqi spy in 1991.” But I can’t find the Telegraph article here on FR.

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

I don't think there's any way that he can win a libel case against the Monitor under US law.

[Shermy]

BTW, the CSN article doesn't say that a "leader" got the money somehow to Galloway, but a "Col. Shawki"

[mewzilla]

This report just appeared on FOX during Hume's show, though Tony Snow is hosting tonight. I hadn't heard about the 10 million before. I knew I could find a report here. But now I really, really, really want to know what George did for all this money. And I hope the Brits are readying a gibbet.

[Psycho_Bunny]

George Galloway's lawyers today said that he was planning legal action over what they said were "totally untrue" claims that Saddam Hussein's regime authorised payments of more than $10 million

I believe him.  Everyone's probably rounding up the actual 9.5 million number.

[Shermy]

He, or his orgs, might have parcelled it out to other orgs too - for example, anti-sanctions campaigners (Whree are they today?) and "anti-war" groups.

[mewzilla]

Gee, somehow I can't see George being all that altruistic. But if that's the case, that he spread it around his pet anti-war causes, why deny the payouts from Saddamn? Better to be nailed for not keeping up with whatever reporting charities or non-profits require over there than to be accused of treason...

[Jumpmaster]

Totally untrue, not a shred of evidence, time to get back to work for the American people...oops! That was somebody else.

[aristeides]

It sounds like he's thinking of suing in a UK court under UK libel law. Would a UK court accept jurisdiction against a Boston paper?

[Shermy]

why deny the payouts from Saddamn?

He's not denying the payouts exactly, and in total. He's saying he didn't "personally" receive them. Depends on what "personally" means.

A few days ago, when he was wobbly, he "conceded" that "third parties" might have got the money intended for his charities...which aren't charities...because they're political orgs, and don't have to declare their books in UK apparently like charities...which would surprise a lot of donors since I assume they thought giving money for medical care for Iraqi children is, well, the work of a charity.

[Grampa Dave]

Define personally and third parties.

Gov Davis never received a large check from WhoreAcle. One of his underlyings got the check written to Davis's campaign fund. The underlying got fired! Davis is still ruining the state of California.

This probably how Galloway set it up. In fact yesterday he was blaming those under him.

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

Maybe he can sue in the UK because of Internet publication, or because the CSM has a "point-of-presence" in the UK.

But I really don't know.

[rightofrush]

George Galloway's lawyers today said that he was planning legal action over what they said were "totally untrue" claims that Saddam Hussein's regime authorised payments of more than $10 million (£6.3 million) to the Labour MP.

...as stated by George from his villa on the Portugese coast.

[aristeides]

In that case anybody (at least anybody in the UK) can sue in the UK for anything that appears anywhere in the world. The Internet is global. Is any court going to accept jurisdiction like that? And how acceptable is it for all publications in the world to suddenly become subject to pro-plaintiff UK libel law?

[MizSterious]

"But now I really, really, really want to know what George did for all this money."

That really is the question, isn't it? I can't believe they'd pay him that much just to say nice things about Iraq and promote world peace. They could have gotten much more for their money by hiring an ad agency. No, I have to think Galloway did lots more for all that money.