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.