Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (162577)	5/19/2005 4:36:27 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

"ST, here is the article. Please do not insult my intelligence" Like the scorpion that is his style--galloway that is. (g)

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (162577)	5/19/2005 4:44:42 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Let's go through the document: "Since then, rumors were abound about vouchers that Saddam gave to certain Arab and foreign dignitaries, providing them with crude oil in exchange for their support to the regime in a period of international isolation, and as a way to finance the campaign to lift the economic sanctions against it and to whitewash its image." Can you explain to me how this works? The oil for food program was strictly under the supervision of UN. Saddam could not hand pick the oil trade. For example how is it that the Senate concluded 52% of the kickback were from US companies? But assume that Saddam could sell the oil to whomever he wanted (which is certainly not the case) and that he traded it with people who were calling for an end or at least easing of the sanctions, then what of it? All it means is that Saddam preferred to benefit those who called for an end to the embargo than Bush's buddies. How is this a stain on Galloway? "And if one happened to know some of the official Ba'athists, who did not hesitate - because of their rural values - to boast...some of the names listed here, among them George Galloway, member of the [British] Labor party." So this guy heard some Ba'athists boast that a British MP has come to visit them. Ok? And? It is not as if Galloway was sneaking through the tunnels to see Saddam. His activities were well known and public. "The case of Mr. Galloway is truly distressing. This man, who defended just Arab causes, became a loser as he got closer to the Iraqi regime. Galloway, who was banished from the party for this reason and who defended himself vehemently, and even attacked Tony Blair's and Bush's policies, will not be able - in my opinion - to refute Iraqi documents that incriminate him conclusively. This is the crux of the problem isn't it? This witch-hunt is because Galloway dared to "even attacked Tony Blair's and Bush's policies". Now we can't have that, can we? How come the CEO of Texas corporations who are responsible for 52% of the kickbacks, more than all the world's combined are not in front of the Senate? But keeping the bias of the speaker aside (and I have no idea as to his credibility) how can this editorial be a considered a proof?! Where does it say that Galloway changed his mind on his activities in exchange for payment? How does it show that Galloway who had already been active in easing the sanctions would not have continued doing exactly as he ha been doing if he had received donations (which I still doubt)? Then there is the issue of credibility. Where is the translation of the documents? Where is the scan of the papers for all to see and translate for themselves? Who has examined them to make sure they are not forgeries like the other two sets. This reminds me of the documents that the Iranian students retrieved out of US embassy. For the next 5 years every time some politician would oppose the powers that be, his name would be "deciphered" out of the shredded documents and he'd go to jail for having been on CIA payroll.