SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: SiouxPal who wrote (17745)5/17/2005 6:45:14 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361043
 
Galloway attacks Senate for 'mother of all smokescreens'
___________________

By Philippe Naughton, Times Online
May 17, 2005
timesonline.co.uk

George Galloway, the Respect MP, attacked a US Senate committee today for its "schoolboy errors" over claims that Saddam Hussein awarded him lucrative contracts under the UN Oil-for-Food programme.

In a defiant performance on Capitol Hill, the new MP for Bethnal Green and Bow accused the committee of traducing his own reputation and mounting "the mother of all smokescreens" to hide the real scandal - that Americans had plundered billions of dollars of Iraqi wealth.

The subcommittee, chaired by Norm Coleman, the Minnesota Republican, had alleged that Mr Galloway used a charity he established in 1998 to channel funds from allocations of 20 million barrels from 2000 to 2003.

"I am not now nor have I ever been an oil trader and neither has anyone on my behalf," Mr Galloway said.

"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and American governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas."

Mr Galloway, who appeared in front of the committee voluntarily and testified under oath, used his opening statement to attack the allegations made against him in a dossier that he said was full of errors.

"On the very first page of your document about me, you assert that I have had many meetings with Saddam Hussein. This is false," Mr Galloway said.

"I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in August 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be described as many meetings. In fact I've met him exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is that Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns."

He selected Mr Coleman as the focus of his wrath, adding: "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 Iraq.

"Now I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer, you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice."

The day-long hearing was reviewing three major reports from the subcommittee of the US Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, which studied in great detail how Saddam made billions in illegal oil sales despite UN sanctions imposed in 1991 after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.

Mr Coleman alleged that Mr Galloway and others who received oil allocations, including prominent Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, then paid kickbacks to Saddam as part of the deal. He claimed that Saddam received more than US $300,000 ($237,416) in surcharges on allocations involving Mr Galloway.

"Senior Hussein regime officials informed the subcommittee that the allocation holders - in this case, Galloway - were ultimately responsible for the surcharge payment and therefore would have known of the illegal, under-the-table payment," he said.

Mr Galloway rejected that and accused Coleman of never having contacted him about the charges. He also defended his opposition to the UN sanctions and the US-led Iraq war.

"I gave my heart and soul to stop you from committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq," Mr Galloway said. "And I told the world that the case for war was a pack of lies."

The Oil-for-Food programme, which ran from 1996 to 2003, was designed to let Saddam’s Government sell oil in exchange for humanitarian goods to help the Iraqi people cope with crippling UN sanctions.

But Saddam peddled influence by awarding favoured politicians, journalists and others vouchers for oil that could then be resold at a profit. He also smuggled oil to Turkey, Jordan and Syria outside the programme, often with the explicit approval of the United States and the rest of the UN Security Council.

As well as pointing the finger at politicians from Britain, France and Russia, committee investigators also argue that a Texas-based oil company, Bayoil, was involved in Saddam’s Oil-for-Food schemes. UN Security Council members - including the United States often looked the other way - they said.

"On the one hand, the United States was at the UN trying to stop Iraq from imposing illegal surcharges on Oil-for-Food contacts," the Democratic Senator Carl Levin said at the start of the hearing. "On the other hand, the US ignored red flags that some US companies might be paying those same illegal surcharges."

While many of the Oil-for-Food claims are not new, rarely have the allegations been spelt out with so much detail or scope. The Senate investigators have interviewed former top Iraqi officials and businessmen, who provided a behind-the-scenes look at how Saddam’s grand scheme worked.

Senator Coleman’s committee claims that Mr Galloway received allocations worth 20 million barrels from 2000 to 2003. It also alleges that former Charles Pasqua, the former French Interior Minister, received allocations worth 11 million barrels from 1999 to 2000.

Today's hearing focused largely on the relationship between Mr Galloway and Jordanian businessman Fawaz Zureikat - whose name also appeared on some of the allocations mentioning Mr Galloway or his Marian Foundation charity, which Mr Zureikat took over in late 2000.

Mr Galloway said that he had never tried to hide the fact that Mr Zureikat was a businessman who traded with sanctions-hit Iraq - in fact he had proclaimed it loudly. But he said what he was denying was the Senate investigators' allegation that he personally profited from his association with Iraq, which he denied.

He said the lists on which his name appeared had been provided by "the convicted bank robber and fraudster and conman" Ahmed Chalabi, the former Pentagon ally who fell out of favour in Washington and is now a Deputy Prime Minister in the new Iraqi Government.

"What counts is not the names on the paper. What counts is where’s the money, Senator? Who paid me money, Senator? Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars? The answer to that is nobody and if you had anybody who paid me a penny you would have produced them here today." he said.

Mr Galloway said one of the Iraq officials who was said to have given evidence against him was being held in Iraq in the Abu Ghraib prison on war crimes charges. "I am not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything which you managed to get from a prisoner in those circumstances," he said.

Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.



To: SiouxPal who wrote (17745)5/17/2005 6:45:52 PM
From: SiouxPal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361043
 
Those boyz from the House Of Commons have more balls than either all or the majority of American politicians IMO.



To: SiouxPal who wrote (17745)5/17/2005 7:00:00 PM
From: Sawdusty  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 361043
 
Bravo to Galloway. I saw some of his testimony on CNN earlier, and thought, what a breath of fresh air. Later shows have omitted some of his stronger statements.

No surprise.



To: SiouxPal who wrote (17745)5/17/2005 8:05:04 PM
From: geode00  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361043
 
Geez Loueeeze. How stupid Republicans look today. What a bunch of simpering liars and what a bunch of stooges corporate media looks like.

It takes a British (!) politician to stand up to the lies and incompetence of the Bush Administration and say, flatly, what a despicable enterprise it is.

Hey, maybe Coleman et al will bring up other Brits to do the same thing.



To: SiouxPal who wrote (17745)5/17/2005 10:38:23 PM
From: Ron  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361043
 
Wow! A straight-talking, gutsy politician! That one made the rounds on my email list this evening. We need this Member of Parliament to come back and visit some more. Perhaps, around Labor Day 2008?
Galloway’s speech and the video also deserve thorough email distribution.
crooksandliars.com



To: SiouxPal who wrote (17745)5/17/2005 10:55:15 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 361043
 
Wow: "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."

I caught Galloway on the news earlier. He enumerated Bush's justification for war one by one, punctuating each with "and this was based on a pack of lies." Unlike Condoleeza "Blinky" Rice, doublespeak Rumsfeld, throw the press out Bush, Galloway leveled his gaze at his accuser, and calmly - without blinking - presented his truth. Good for him.

Also in the news tonight - is it this way every night? I never watch - American doctors have been experimenting on foster children. They have given them experimental AIDS drugs because these kids were HIV positive. Ninety-five percent of the time, HIV does not lead to AIDS. The presence of HIV antibodies shows that the immune system has won the battle against HIV. HOwever, giving AIDS drugs undermines the immune system and can cause AIDS. These children were probably just fine and could have led long, productive lives. Because they were throw-away foster children and because of some unethical practices by some doctors, they became human guinea pigs. Though they are supposed to have patient advocates, none did.

The HIV virus is thought to be the cause of AIDS, but there's strong evidence that it isn't. The frightening truth is that no one knows for sure, and few scientists are admitting it. Are precious time, money and lives being lost while we fight a harmless virus?

HIV is called "the AIDS virus," and medical experts have made it the keystone of their battle against AIDS, building all their efforts to fight the disease around it. But what if they're wrong? According to Professor Peter Duesberg of UC-Berkeley, years of time and millions in research dollars have been wasted on the belief that the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is the cause of AIDS. The real cause of AIDS, Duesberg says, is still unknown, and HIV is just a latent, and perfectly harmless, retrovirus that most but not all AIDS patients happen to carry.

"To say that HIV is the cause of AIDS is to cast aside everything we know about retroviruses," says Duesberg, a member of the National Academy of Sciences who has been studying retroviruses for twenty years. The HIV theory, he says, is inconsistent, paradoxical and absurd - little more than a by-product of a decade-old search for a retrovirus that could be called the cause of cancer.
buildfreedom.com
msnbc.msn.com
ahrp.org

I am shocked.

Meanwhile, as Florida braces for five or nine hurricanes in the coming season, folks in Southern Florida claimed damages when there were none and received thousands in FEMA funding to buy new wardrobes and television sets. Meanwhile, neighbors and neighborhoods, demolished fire stations to the north are still waiting for aid.
AND in Iraq - Civil war has broken out or will soon.