Its time for DU to admit it: Galloway is Guilty

[Nederland]

Of course George Galloway is entitled to presumption of innocence, but at this point I'd say he looks about as guilty as Lewis Libby. I predict that he will be tried and found guilty sometime within the next two years. When one considers an independent investigation by Jimmy Carter's Fed Chief Paul Volcker, an investigation by Iraqi jounalists, an investigastion by the US Senate, and a furthcoming investigation by his own House of Commons, its clear that Galloway is up a creek. He may soon get even more than his wish--trials on both sides of the Atlantic.



George with his good buddy


Recent News:

US prosecutors appear to be taking up Galloway's challenge

http://scotlandtoday.scottishtv.co.uk/content/default.asp?page=s1_1_1&newsid=9348

Galloway in the dock

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=2167542005

Galloway, Iraq and the oil-voucher scandal

http://www.thebusinessonline.com/Stories.aspx?Galloway,%20Iraq%20and%20the%20oil-voucher%20scandal&StoryID=BCB27267-F816-4B53-B024-57F6CD08F737&SectionID=F3B76EF0-7991-4389-B72E-D07EB5AA1CEE

Department of Justice to investigate George Galloway

http://www.thebusinessonline.com/SectionStories.aspx?Top%20Stories&SectionID=F3B76EF0-7991-4389-B72E-D07EB5AA1CEE&menu=1

[texpatriot2004]

1. Rubbish. There are pictures of Rumsfeld and Cheney with him

too.

[Nederland]

6. Exactly

And Galloway is just as guilty as those people are.

The only difference is Galloway stayed loyal to his buddy Saddam until the bitter end, while Rumsfeld et al stabbed him in the back.

[texpatriot2004]

9. Rubbish! It's Rethug spin. n.t

[Nederland]

Have you read the Volcker report? (nt)

[texpatriot2004]

12. Even more rubbish as the source for Volcker is CHALABI! nm

[Nederland]

15. I see you haven't read it

Let me know when you actually have.

Here you go:

http://www.iic-offp.org/documents/IIC%20Final%20Report%2027Oct2005.pdf

[texpatriot2004]

18. Chalabi = ZERO CREDIBILITY nm

[texpatriot2004]

20. Chalabi is good for propaganda though and for Bushies nm

[Nederland]

21. What page of the report are you referring to?

I posted a link, give me the page number.

[Nederland]

22. Are you aware...

...that Burhan Mohammed Al-Chalabi is not Ahmed Chalabi?

One is an Iraqi businessman based in the UK, the other is a discredited CIA hack.

But I'm sure you knew that, right?

:rofl:

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[papau]

27. Have you read the latest on the Volker Report - that Aziz recants and that

Coleman is crying today that one should not believe the recant by Saddam's VP because Tariq is no longer is just US custody.

LOL

the "evidence" against Galloway seems to be melting - At least it is for all those not in the media and trying justify printing a GOP handout that supports Coleman.

:-)

[Nederland]

40. You obviously haven't read the report

The vast majority of the evidence against Galloway is in the form of financial transaction records, not witness testimony.

Aziz's testimony is irrelevant.

[papau]

69. The original announced Galloway financial transaction records were forged

Perhaps that is why the report that I have not read says Galloway may have recieved vouchers - rather than asserting that records show that he did.

The British Courts reviewed those records and found for Galloway.

It will be interesting if we let an American Court have a go at reviewing those records in say a Galloway Slander suit.

At this point Coleman has not spoke outside of the wording of the report - so no Slander yet - and the only Coleman addition was the Tariq assertions - which are now proven to be a lie per Tariq himself.

I suspect Coleman will now drop this except on the floor of the Senate where he is immune from slander suits for what he says.

If the GOP have the balls to continue to lie about this, a slander suit will be fun to watch!

:toast:

:-)


FYI from Winipedia

One of the earliest allegations of wrongdoing in the program surfaced on 25 January 2004, when al Mada, a daily newspaper in Iraq, published a list of individuals and organizations alleged to have received oil sales contracts via the UN's Oil-for-Food Programme. The list came from over 15,000 documents which were reportedly found in the state-owned Iraqi oil corporation which had close links to the Iraqi Oil Ministry. The oil ministry was headed by allies of Ahmed Chalabi, controversial member of the Iraqi governing council who had been widely criticized for supplying the US with bogus information during the lead up to the war. Chalabi's alleged involvement and the initial lack of corroborating evidence placed doubt on the accuracy of the al Mada list.

Named in the list of beneficiaries were the British MP, George Galloway and his charity, the Mariam Fund, former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, and Shaker al-Kaffaji, an Iraqi-American businessman, who contributed US$400,000 to produce a film by ex-UN inspector Scott Ritter discrediting the weapons searches. Many prominent Russian firms and individuals were also included in the al-Mada allegations. Even the Russian Orthodox Church was supposedly involved in illegal oil trading. George Galloway subsequently won two libel actions against the Christian Science Monitor and Daily Telegraph which reported the allegations.<7>

[papau]

70. How they forged the case against Galloway

How they forged the case against Galloway
Simon Assaf and Charlie Kimber, assisted by Ann Ashford

The central document used against George Galloway this week by the senate committee in Washington is a forgery. Investigation by Socialist Worker shows that evidence crucial to the alleged case against the Respect MP is a fake, created after the fall of Baghdad in 2003

How they forged the case against Galloway
George Galloway's name 'appears' in the list
George Galloway's name 'appears' in the list
by Simon Assaf and Charlie Kimber, assisted by Ann Ashford
The central document used against George Galloway this week by the senate committee in Washington is a forgery. Investigation by Socialist Worker shows that evidence crucial to the alleged case against the Respect MP is a fake, created after the fall of Baghdad in 2003.
The entire assault is another desperate attempt to smear the opponents of the war on Iraq and to make them appear as the corrupt hirelings of tyranny.
In Britain the material is another dirty weapon to be employed in an effort to destroy George Galloway and break the rise of Respect.
Most of the accusations hurled against George Galloway by Norm Coleman's senate committee on investigations this week were based on testimony which was supposedly freely given by former Saddam Hussein regime officials who are now held by US forces.
In many cases they are not even named.
But there is one piece of evidence that at first glance seems persuasive. It is in the findings of the Duelfer Report - the conclusions of the Iraq Survey Group headed by Charles Duelfer which last year admitted Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
The senate committee's document says, "According to the evidence in the Duelfer Report, the Hussein regime granted Galloway six oil allocations totalling 20 million barrels of oil".
In the section of the Duelfer Report on "Regime finance and procurement", there is an annex (Annex B) of "Known oil voucher recipients".
According to Duelfer, "This annex contains the 13 secret lists maintained by Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan al-Jizrawi and the Minister for Oil, Amir Rashid Muhammad al-Ubaydi. A high-level Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organisation (SOMO) official provided the Iraq Survey Group with both English and Arabic versions of these lists on 16 June 2004. The lists reproduced here are the original SOMO translations in English."
The list has hundreds of names of individuals and corporations many of which, according to Duelfer, acted legally in dealing in Iraqi oil under the UN Oil for Food programme.
The first mention of George Galloway is contract M/09/23. This alleges that 1.014 million barrels of oil were allocated to "Mr Fawwaz Zurayqat - Mr George Galloway -Aredio Petroleum (French)".
Look closely at the entry
The typeface (font) used for "Mr George Galloway" is different to the rest of the line. Indeed the only time the font is used in the entire document is for George Galloway entries.
"Mr George Galloway" does not line up with the rest of the words in the entry, it is at an angle to the other words.
The spacings between "Mr George Galloway" and the rest of the words are inconsistent.
The dash after the words "Mr George Galloway" touches the following word.
The words "Mr George Galloway" are at a different density (lighter) than the rest of the line.
The most likely explanation is that the words "Mr George Galloway" have been imported after the list was prepared, perhaps stuck on and then photocopied to produce the list in the Duelfer Report.
Elsewhere the Duelfer Report revisits this same contract note and, citing an internal Iraqi document, says the allocation was to "Fawaz Zuraiqat - Mariam's Appeal".
Was this the original name which was then changed to smear George Galloway?
The documents used by the Senate committee allegedly come from the Iraqi oil ministry, seized by the US military immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein.
At the time it was run by a group of Iraqi exiles, including Fadhil Chalabi - a cousin of Ahmed Chalabi, the fraudster whose fake intelligence was used by Bush and Blair in the run-up to the war.
After some names who had allegedly profited from oil trading under Saddam Hussein were published by the Iraqi Al-Mada newspaper in January 2004, two Iraq-based investigations began looking into the matter.
One was set up by Paul Bremer, then proconsul of Iraq, along with Ihsan Karim, the head of Iraq's Board of Supreme Audit, aided by Ernst & Young, an auditing firm.
The other was conducted by Claude Hankes-Drielsma, a close associate of Ahmed Chalabi, directed by Chalabi himself, and aided by the British firm KPMG.
Bremer and Chalabi clashed, with each side trying to say it was the real investigation.
The most stunning allegations - of international figures implicated in the scandal - all came from Chalabi's office, though no one else was allowed to verify his documents.
In a May 2004 raid on Chalabi's offices, Bremer reportedly seized files related to the Oil for Food programme.
Meanwhile, Ihsan Karim signed an agreement in June to turn over his board's findings to an independent investigative team led by former US Reserve Bank chairman Paul Volcker. In July 2004, however, Karim was killed by a car bomb.
The investigation led by Paul Volcker has made use of Chalabi's lists to make its allegations, and it is these names which were included in the Duelfer Report.
Even Volcker's team said it had not been able to verify independently the names on the list. "We name those individuals and entities here in the interest of candour, clarity and thoroughness," the Duelfer report said, adding that it did not "investigate or judge those non-Iraqi individuals."
The accusations against George Galloway are esentially a reheated version of the lies produced by the Daily Telegraph in April 2003.
These resulted in £150,000 libel damages and £1.2 million in costs.
The following should be read alongside this article:
» A forger gives his account
» The Mariam Appeal
» Who is Norm Coleman?
» Evidence from the torture chambers
» George Galloway's view
» A history of smears and lies
» Sanctions and the oil for food programme

[Nederland]

77. Again, this is old

The evidence against Galloway is financial transactions uncovered by Paul Volkler.

[zann725]

76. Absolutely! Galloway's "guilty" of telling the Truth. We all know the

verdict for that in Repug world.

[Carolab]

2. Okay, I admit it.

He's guilty of telling the truth.

[Nederland]

10. Truth about the war, yes

Truth about his involvement in oil for food?

No.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nederland]

44. Try posting someting that's more recent

Your link is to an article that is nearly a year old. You obviously haven't kept up to date and need to educate yourself.

[Carolab]

52. I am aware of the date of the article.

It contained some "predictions" and explanations that I thought germane to the discussion.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that the cabal's intention is primarily to bring down the UN--or at least "clean house"? And why is it hard for you to believe they'd use Galloway as well as Annan to do it?

[Nederland]

54. It's not hard to believe

It's just that in this case, the target also happens to be guilty as sin.

[TheDebbieDee]

3. Guilty or not, I still love the way George Galloway stood up to......

that yuckmouth Norm Coleman and the rest of the hypocritical US senators on that UN Oil-for-Food investigative panel.

That took guts and I guess George has plenty of that!

[PurityOfEssence]

60. Yeah, but did you like how he pissed all over a good man like Carl Levin?

Galloway wasn't just wrong there, he did a disservice to a truly decent man. Levin held his tongue like a gentleman, but did point out Galloway's mistake. (Levin was one of only two Senators up for re-election who voted against the IWR; the other was the late Paul Wellstone. Lest we forget, too: almost half of the Democratic Senators voted against it and about two thirds of the Democrats in Congress did too.)

I like the way Galloway tore Coleman to shreds, too, and I like a lot of what he's said. I don't like his rabid anti-choice stance and some other basically primitive beliefs.

People are a package deal; if he sleazed money out of Iraq at a time when people were going hungry, he's got some 'splaining to do. If he didn't, then he should get a very public apology.

We shall see.

[buff2]

4. Baloney

Nice try. :thumbsdown:

[rzemanfl]

5. Well, he sure isn't going to admit it to any lickspittle toadys. If

he is guilty, then he sure is putting up a good fight. Don't you consider it possible that Saddam set up a few people as a defense measure, laying out false paper trails that led to some innocent folks? Isn't this comparable to a madam putting the names of some prominent folks in her list of johns, whether they were customers or not?

[Nederland]

8. Saddam setup Galloway?

Now I've heard everything.

[rzemanfl]

11. Well, have it your way, Galloway is guilty and so is the Vatican

guy. I believe every word Tariq Assiz says now too.

[papau]

74. LOL :-)

:-)

[Greeby]

7. To hell with him

Galloway is derelict in his responsibility as an MP to actually turn up and vote on a majority of legislation and therefore is derelict in his duty to his party and his consituency to represent their views.

And what kind of person can claim to be a force for the anti-war movement in parliament, yet does not use that position to even attempt to get a bill on the floor to end the war?

[Taxloss]

38. I find it interesting that most Brit DUers have no time for GG.

Myself included. I suppose we've just been exposed to him longer. Even Vladimir, a Respect supporter, doesn't like him.

Is he guilty? I don't know. But I trust him about as far as I could throw him.

[Greeby]

39. I just have no time for people who don't walk it like they talk it

Especially when I'm paying their salary

[autorank]

14. Jimmy Carter's anything is hardly an endorsement, to wit Robert A. Pastor

Who might that be, he's the Director of the Carter-Baker Election Commission, Prof at AU and also signer of this letter demanding that Clinton invade Iraq in 1998. Look who Carter's boy hangs out with:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/1990s/openletter021998.htm

Pastor was close to Carter since he workd for Caters Center.

Carter chose to serve with, James Baker, the guy everybody knows was behind the strong arming resulting in an end to the Florida Vote Count (Bolton was his hit man). He chose and approved of this guy Pastor, who's a f'ing PNAC clone.

Carter and his stupid commission then came up with a National Voter ID, a Jim Crow law if there ever was one (and declared unconstitutional in GA recently).

So don't trot Carter out as the great man of integrity. He's just another sorry eyed, collaborator.

Is Galloway guilty, to get back to your point, sans the argument by authority critique). I don't know. I heard the story about his sister getting oil shares on the radio briefliy and thought: hey the guys' a crook, and then thought immediately, hey bLIAR and his crew probably fixed that just to screw Galloway. I'm leaning to the latter hypothesis.

[bowens43]

16. Sure...and Saddam was stockpiling nukes.....

just another swiftboating.

[PowerToThePeople]

19. yup, I smell a smear campaign.

Just one more thing to try and get the focus off of the illegal, criminal power structure currently running the US govt.

[phusion]

17. I think DU was taken,

and perhaps still is, by Galloway's impressive performance in front of Congress.

We wanted someone to come into the public eye and denounce the Iraq war and Galloway did a helluva job at just that. Many of us, myself included, were inspired by his speech.

Everything he said in that speech was true and the possibility that he was involved in the scandal should not discount that. He should be punished if he is guilty, but that would not make his courage any less admirable.

[walldude]

58. Ditto.. you said it better than I ever could.. thanks n/t

[NashVegas]

23. Galloway Is Little More Than a Sideshow Distraction

DU and some others cheered Galloway because he stood up and told Bush and his Poodle to stuff it.

Let's say for the sake of argument, he was taking money from Saddam. So what?

So fucking what?

How does this change the tenet that the Iraq war was unjustified?

Does this change the fact Iraq was a sovereign nation?

Does this mean Saddam's Iraq was a happy host for terrorists?

Does this mean there were WMD?


Answers: it doesn't, it doesn't, it doesn't and it doesn't.

Still Galloway entertains us because he's still the only elected leader in a US-friendly nation that's publicly telling our bellicose RW to shove it.

And because he's elected, he can't be fired like so many others have in other US-friendly nations who've publicly spoken out against Bush and our government. For that reason alone, the junta has been working overtime to find something to bring on him. Like the US DoJ has any business investigating this? Our Senate investigating this?

Look how the RW spin-makers love to keep coming back to Galloway. They just have to prove they're right. They just have to discredit this impudent Brit who dared stand up to the machine.

US taxpayer dollars are being wasted because of this one little roaring mouse that Poodle can't fire. The worst Tony could do was kick Galloway out of the Labour party. And look what happened.

[ismnotwasm]

32. There it is

I did read the parts relating to Galloway, France, Russia and couple other business persons. I don't have time right now to read 600+ pages of "They said he said this and they said he signed that and here's the photocopy" And then "he" whoever it may be says "No I didn't and" In fact several denials in that document from what I've read so far. Interesting.

Like you said, It doesn't change a thing.

[Little Star]

51. I'm with you Crisco

Big deal on oil for food scandal. Like the whole lot of them don't do the same thing. Pot meet Kettle.

[MGKrebs]

24. If they have the evidence they say they have, it looks bad for him.

Couldn't rule it out, but since he has carried some heavy loads for our side, I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

In other words, I haven't heard his side of the story yet, except his denials.

[radwriter0555]

25. Oh GOOD idea, we'll let the criminals & thugs call GALLOWAY a crook

and thug.

You know, the same guys who said saddam had wmds? Yeah, we'll believe the liars. What a great idea!

[Cleita]

33. Sorry wrong place.

[Cleita]

34. ...

[SeveneightyWhoa]

49. Perhaps the issue is not black and white?

You seem to be engaging in black-white thinking, the kind I assumed the Right had perfected.

Maybe "the criminals and thugs" are just that, criminals and thugs -- and so is Galloway?

[daleo]

26. It will turn out to be another pack of lies

It always does.

[papau]

28. It already did this morning - Tariq's lawyers says that Tariq states that

Galloway got nothing from Saddam.

But it made Coleman happy today to say that gee wiz Volker thought Galloway might have gotton something - it is not Coleman's fault that Coleman lied - eh?

LOL

:-)

[JanMichael]

31. Or the same pack of lies packed in a different package.

It never ends with CONservatives, they'll hit the replay button until it f'ing breaks.

[creeksneakers2]

29. I trust Carl Levin

Levin said there was overwhelming evidence against Galloway. I've watched Carl for years and he's always been honest. I don't really know Galloway outside of one great speech he made before our Congress.

[lyonn]

30. So these people and their investigations are cause to accuse

Galloway of illegally dealing in oil with Saddam? An Investigation by ex Fed Chief Paul Volcker, an investigation by Iraqi journalists, an investigation by the US Senate (which is controlled totally by the repubs), and a forthcoming investigation by his own House of Commons, that is not a stellar group in my view. Shouldn't one wait for some real evidence?

[Nederland]

36. Read the report

All the "real" evidence you want is there.

The report is not a transcript of eyewitness reports. It is a collection of financial transactions that will bury Galloway.

[0007]

72. I can't buy into your phony theory or fixed transactions that

only YOU appear to understand.


What's your agenda, Mr. Mouse?

[Cleita]

35. Your sources are an interesting choice.

It shouldn't surprise you that a smear campaign is under way to discredit anyone who would challenge BushCo.

[slaveplanet]

37. I think it will play out like this

Galloway's exwife has cancer...so likely they'll drag this out until she is no longer around...then drop the hammer on him in retaliation for his speaking out.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nederland]

42. I'm bookmarking this thread

We'll see if your right.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[xchrom]

45. du's support of galloway is of little importance --

why are you so interested in other people's interest in him?

it's not like you're after galloway - - you're after people who like him.

what an odd hobby.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

50. Because people who like him are wrong.

Do you also get mad at people who are after people who support and love the Bush administration? That's not so odd a hobby, is it?

[xchrom]

71. galloway can't hurt anybody --

bush can and does.

again -- it's like being a fundy -- people must accept your global vision of truth or nothing -- why are you so interested in what other people think about this?

it's hogwash.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

48. I admit it.

And I'm ashamed that other DU'ers STILL support this lying, conniving, Saddam-supporting douchebag. How embarassing to our "cause".

The general line here is that Galloway is God because he stood up to Norm Coleman, and if you don't agree, you're parroting right-wing propaganda. Perhaps some of us would prefer not to be associated with such despicable figures, no matter who they may have "dissed" in the past?

[JanMichael]

53. How the fuck is he lying???

How is he conniving?

Stop with the platitudes and conjecture!

[Nederland]

55. It's simple

When he said:

Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader. 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.

This was a lie and the financial transactions uncovered by Paul Volkler prove it.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

65. There ya go.

Satisfied with that answer?

[agincourt]

78. Weren't those financial transactions,

predominately with Galloway's wife?

[alittlelark]

63. dupe

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

56. I'll admit it when it's proven...

... and not based on your supposition or your demands.

In the meantime, I'll enjoy his theatrics. I find him entertaining. His performance in front of Coleman was a breath of fresh air.

If Galloway is found guilty by someone in a position of authority {i.e., not you} of the crimes you and Coleman accuse him of, then so be it. However, that will still place him way down my list of "evil-doers" {to steal an abused phrase} behind Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, the PNACers, Blair, Berlusconi, "Poland", "wood", etc.

[savemefromdumbya]

57. unless you know what happened it is better not to post

Galloway was set up - period

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ksec]

61. On whose word is he guilty? Chalabi the liar?

Pulease. Dont insult our intelligence.

Chalabi should be tried for war crimes, his con cost us 2 THOUSAND LIVES.

[pox americana]

64. psst... Galloway is on our side.

And there's this legal principle called presumption of innocence, ever heard of it?

[SeveneightyWhoa]

67. Galloway's on our side?

That's pretty detrimental to "our side", then, isn't it.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

68. He's not on my side.

I have absolutely zero use for liars and crooks. That's why I'm a Democrat and not a Republican.

[papau]

73. It appears that a Court found that he was not a liar and crook - please

see the details in my post above.

:-)

[Nihil]

75. Psst ... you are being stalked by, er, "billy-goat eaters" ...

Don't waste your breath with logic when the likes of the OP and the
first couple of replies to you are such fundies ...

Galloway is no angel. Very few people will argue with that.
On the other hand, Galloway *is* more honest than practically all
other politicians (well, certainly of the UK and the US) so Coleman's
latest foray into slander is only to be expected.

The sad thing is not that DUers support Galloway but that so many
are actively supporting yet another kangaroo court set up with the
primary goal of distracting people from the real criminals.