# "Galloway was in Saddam's pay" -- Is this the tip of the iceberg? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 22, 2003, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202 "2003-04-22T01:57:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202/61 "2003-04-24T12:41:37Z")
Something I’m wondering: if anti-war protestors are _de facto_ Hussein supporters, what does that make pro-war folks? After all, Bin Laden’s explicit reason for bombing the WTC was to spark a war between the Middle East and the United States in order to heighten anti-American sentiments in the Middle East. I wish **December** and ilk would go ahead and fess up to the bribes they’re taking from Bin Laden. They sure look like traitors to me. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202/62 "2003-04-24T13:00:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DanielWithrow \* > **After all, Bin Laden’s explicit reason for bombing the WTC was to spark a war between the Middle East and the United States in order to heighten anti-American sentiments in the Middle East.** Cite? I thoght he mostly wanted to kill Americans, Christians, and Jews. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202/63 "2003-04-24T13:34:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*Galloway admits others may have taken money \*\* > > George Galloway conceded last night that intermediaries in his fund-raising activities could have siphoned off money from Saddam Hussein - but insisted he had never done so… > > Speaking to the Guardian from his holiday home in Portugal, Mr Galloway said there was a “possibility” that third parties had taken money from the former Iraqi dictator. > > He also conceded he was open to criticism for collecting money from what he called “unlikely quarters”. But he insisted he personally had received “no money from anybody”… > > Yesterday, the allegations intensified as the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith QC, in his capacity as protector of charities, confirmed he was considering whether to inves tigate claims Mr Galloway had misspent money raised by the Mariam Appeal… > > Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith called for a parliamentary investigation into Mr Galloway’s financial affairs. > > “I say crime because if it is true that he took money from the oil-for-food programme, it is a crime against humanity. That was money for food for the people in Iraq, it was not for George Galloway.” [http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,942319,00.html](http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,942319,00.html) Looks like Galloway is toast. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202/64 "2003-04-24T13:45:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*[http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,942319,00.html](http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,942319,00.html) > > Looks like Galloway is toast. \*\* If the allegations are true, then I’d hope you’re right. However, according to [the Guardian](http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,941625,00.html) again: > [@](#): > > A classic scam by intelligence officers is to explain the need for money by pointing to the demands of an innocent third party. > > In truth, the full story of the Galloway documents may not be known for many years. I hope the truth does come out, and whoever is guilty gets their deserved punishment. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202/65 "2003-04-24T14:24:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*Cite? I thoght he mostly wanted to kill Americans, Christians, and Jews. \*\* It’s hard to find bin Laden’s words on the Web, but we can look at [some summaries](http://www.fcnl.org/issues/pea_dean.htm): > [@](#): > > Based on their own accounts, Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri had three main objectives in planning and launching the September 11 attacks. Of course, they wanted to hurt and humiliate the United States as Arabs had been humiliated. But they also had more specific aims: > > 1. The United States, which supports the Saudi and Egyptian governments, is seen as the main obstacle to success of this objective. So the aim of al Qaeda on September 11 was to strike a heavy blow at the symbols of American power, in order to, if possible, cause the U.S. to withdraw its support of Arab governments, **or to cause the U.S. to strike out blindly at Islamic countries and thus unify Muslim opinion behind the al Qaeda cause. This could still happen, perhaps with a United States attack on Iraq.** > …[emphasis added] And everywhere you look, bin Laden has used US attacks against the Middle East as recruiting tools in his speeches. **december** -logic conclusion? People that support US attacks in the Middle East support Bin Laden. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Mojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Mojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202/66 "2003-04-24T15:35:45Z")
Galloway has responded to the charges in a piece published in the _Independent_ [here](http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=399799). After reading it, I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s either guiltier than sin, or a complete buffoon. From his rebuttal: > [@](#): > > The Telegraph says I traded in oil and food under the oil-for-food programme. To whom did I sell this oil (which, incidentally, is done through the United Nations Sanctions Committee and subject to the most forensic scrutiny)? And what happened to the proceeds? In other words, where is the money? From whom did I buy the food that I allegedly sold to Iraq? Which food? When? Where? No, they claimed you skimmed money from the oil for food program, not that you directly traded in oil and food. Therefore your protests that you’ve “never seen a barrel of oil” or “which food” is a red herring. For a guy complaining about misinformation this is too much. OTOH, “where is the money?” is a legitimate question- and if he checks the bank statements for the Mariam Appeal (the charity set up to help an Iraqi girl with leukemia that wound up being used as Galloway’s personal travel fund- currently their financial records are secret) he may have his answer. I’m not convinced that he is guilty (I’d need to see a paper trail of money for that) but his defense really does read like the desperate act of a guilty man. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202/67 "2003-04-24T15:43:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mojo \* > \*\*Galloway has responded to the charges in a piece published in the _Independent_ [here](http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=399799). After reading it, I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s either guiltier than sin, or a complete buffoon. From his rebuttal: > > No, they claimed you skimmed money from the oil for food program, not that you directly traded in oil and food. Therefore your protests that you’ve “never seen a barrel of oil” or “which food” is a red herring. For a guy complaining about misinformation this is too much. OTOH, “where is the money?” is a legitimate question- and if he checks the bank statements for the Mariam Appeal (the charity set up to help an Iraqi girl with leukemia that wound up being used as Galloway’s personal travel fund- currently their financial records are secret) he may have his answer. > > I’m not convinced that he is guilty (I’d need to see a paper trail of money for that) but his defense really does read like the desperate act of a guilty man. \*\* Can I just point out the Miriam Fund IS NOT a registered charity, it is explicitly a political campaign organisation. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202/68 "2003-04-24T16:02:37Z")
> [@](#): > > So what does BBC’s coverage of 20-year old miner strikes in Great Britain have to do with a Telegraph reporter’s claims of finding incriminating documents in current day Iraq? I understand your bewilderment at my juxtaposing of two seemingly unconnected stories, if you are not pretty well aware of the small UK issues that hardly ever make news outside of the UK it must have seemed a bit odd. The connection is that the 20 year old miners dispute had the head of the union concerned set up by persons unknown in a way to undermine his credibility, and by the very same newspaper. This story was slightly believable in that Mr Arthur Scargill had previously visited Colonal Ghadhaffi in the latters famous desert tent. The story was repeated by the tv news, epsecially the BBC which was also seriously distorting events at gathering places for the miners, such as Orgreave coke works. The story got repeated often, the BBC is taken to be a fairly authorative source and so its reports lent more credibility to the false allegations, just by its repeating of those allegations. All those allegations were unfounded, Mr Arthur Scargill sued for libel and won damages, and the BBC itself admitted to serious shortcomings in its reporting of various events during the miners disput, some eight years later when the whole issue was well out of the public eye. The connection is this, allegations have been made against an anit-war campaigner that strongly suggest corruption, but this has been reported in a newspaper that has a very heavy editorial bias which makes any political story coming from them very suspect. However the BBC has reported this headline story and by dint of repetition, the story will get more authority, and the staff at the BBC are very well versed in the effects of its reporting. The independance of the BBC has always been its gemstone, but in fact the BBC will report stories in ways that suits the political climate and leaders of the day when they are told. There are now legal proceedings ongoing, what this should mean is that responsible news organisations should be very careful of what they report and how it may be interpreted by the public in case they become embroiled in the libel action themselves. I notice that the ‘Torygraph’ has continued with its allegations, legal action notwithstanding, and this is especially venal because they have such a wide audience and are also one of the parties involved in the litigation. Seems to me that the ‘Torygraph’ is trying that little but too hard to make the shit stick, they seem to be going the extra mile, when in fact they should now be withdrawing from making further allegations until the court case. The idea of Galloway being involved in piddling little oil transactions of £375k is laughable in an industry where the sums of money involved run into nine figures.The fact that the only folk who could actually dip into the oil for food money work in New York for the UN and that any payments would be extremely easy to verify should sound the credibility alarm bells a-ringing. I notice that the story has shifted away from the oil dealing, which was clearly rubbish, to straight handing over money or demands for cash. Basically it looks to me like the ‘Torygraph’ is trying to shift the issue from an absurd and utterly unlikely accusation, to one where perhaps it is not as obviously stupid and hence more difficult to deny without a lot more investigation. This is a classic tactic, when you are losing the argument by holding a ridiculous postion, then change your position and conveniently ignore that claptrap you previously spouted. ---
**Author:** ![Mojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Mojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202/69 "2003-04-24T16:13:30Z")
True, if it was a **registered** charity he’d have to open the books. From [_The Guardian_](http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,942309,00.html): > [@](#): > > There appeared to be little ambiguity about the fund’s charitable aims at the time. In a letter to donors, Mr Galloway wrote: “The Mariam Appeal has had to guarantee the costs of her treatment which could be up to £50,000. The appeal’s target is £100,000 with the balance being sent back to Iraq in medicines and medical supplies for the children she has had to leave behind.” > > But on Tuesday he told the BBC the appeal was in no way a charitable exercise. “It is not a charity. It is a political campaign, and it always has been.” By not establishing the appeal as a charity he was relieved of the need to publish accounts and was not restricted by charity guidelines which ban political campaigning. On preview I see that **casdave** has responded- I’ll point out that the Telegraph is in no way backing away from their original claims or changing their position and that these new accusations are from information that’s just now becoming available. Also note that the Guardian (about as lefty as you can get) is citing a lot of this info as well. Look, either the documents say what the Telegraph claims or they don’t. If they don’t, then you’re correct and they’re manufacturing this whole episode- but so far that doesn’t seem to be the case. If they do say what they claim that they say, then either the documents are real and Galloway rightfully goes down or the docs are fake and the Telegraph, not knowing this, acted in good faith. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202/70 "2003-04-24T16:28:18Z")
> [@](#): > > The idea of Galloway being involved in piddling little oil transactions of £375k is laughable in an industry where the sums of money involved run into nine figures. That was his cut, annually. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202/71 "2003-04-24T16:37:31Z")
> [@](#): > > any payments would be extremely easy to verify should sound the credibility alarm bells a-ringing. Surprisingly, no. The books and accounts of the oil-for-food program are not transparent. Moreover, any payments would be run through several intermediaries. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202/72 "2003-04-24T16:57:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beagle \* > \*\*Surprisingly, no. The books and accounts of the oil-for-food program are not transparent. Moreover, any payments would be run through several intermediaries. \*\* [This column](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/18/opinion/18ROSE.html) from the New York Times supports **Beagle’s** point. > [@](#): > > **Oil, Food and a Whole Lot of Questions** > By CLAUDIA ROSETT > > …Whatever Mr. Annan’s reasons for wanting to reincarnate the operation, before he makes his case there’s something he needs to do: open the books. > > The oil-for-food program is no ordinary relief effort. Not only does it involve astronomical amounts of money, it also operates with alarming secrecy. Intended to ease the human cost of economic sanctions by letting Iraq sell oil and use the profits for staples like milk and medicine, the program has morphed into big business. Since its inception, the program has overseen more than $100 billion in contracts for oil exports and relief imports combined. > > It also collects a 2.2 percent commission on every barrel — more than $1 billion to date — that is supposed to cover its administrative costs. According to staff members, the program’s bank accounts over the past year have held balances upward of $12 billion. With all that money pouring straight from Iraq’s oil taps — thus obviating the need to wring donations from member countries — the oil-for-food program has evolved into a bonanza of jobs and commercial clout. Before the war it employed some 1,000 international workers and 3,000 Iraqis. (The Iraqi employees — charged with monitoring Saddam Hussein’s imports and distribution of relief goods — of course all had to be approved by the Baath Party.) > > Initially, all contracts were to be approved by the Security Council. Nonetheless, the program facilitated a string of business deals tilted heavily toward Saddam Hussein’s preferred trading partners, like Russia, France and, to a lesser extent, Syria. About a year ago, in the name of expediency, Mr. Annan was given direct authority to sign off on all goods not itemized on a special watch list. Yet shipments with Mr. Annan’s go-ahead have included so-called relief items such as “boats” and boat “accessories” from France and “sport supplies” from Lebanon (sports in Iraq having been the domain of Saddam’s Hussein’s sadistic elder son, Uday). > > …The quantities of goods involved in shipments are confidential, and almost all descriptions on the contract lists made public by the United Nations are so generic as to be meaningless. For example, a deal with Russia approved last Nov. 19 was described on the contract papers with the enigmatic notation: “goods for resumption of project.” Who are the Russian suppliers? The United Nations won’t say. What were they promised in payment? That’s secret… > > Bureaucratic lags notwithstanding, putting a veil of secrecy over tens of billions of dollars in contracts is an invitation to kickbacks, political back-scratching and smuggling done under cover of relief operations. Of course, with so little paperwork made public, it is impossible to say whether there has been any malfeasance so far — but I found nothing that would seem to contradict Gen. Tommy Franks’s comment that the system should have been named the “oil-for-palace program.”… > > And then there is this menacing list of countries that supplied “detergent”: Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Algeria, Yemen and Sudan. Maybe all that multisourced soap was just a terrific bargain for doing the laundry… > > Mr. Annan’s office does share more detailed records with the Security Council members, but none of those countries makes them public. There is no independent, external audit of the program; financial oversight goes to officials from a revolving trio of member states — currently South Africa, the Philippines and, yes, France. > > As for the program’s vast bank accounts, the public is told only that letters of credit are issued by a French bank, BNP Paribas. Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq, entitled to goods funded by 13 percent of the program’s revenues, have been trying for some time to find out how much interest they are going to receive on $4 billion in relief they are still owed… The whole article is well worth reading. ---
**Author:** ![Mojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Mojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202/73 "2003-04-24T17:34:49Z")
Since we’re on the subject of Galloway, I just saw this story posted on the Telegraph- [He’d give kilts and whisky to a legless Muslim](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/04/23/do2302.xml) ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202/74 "2003-04-24T18:05:09Z")
Read Galloways statement in reponse to these allegations. [http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/04/week\_3/22\_gall.html](http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/04/week_3/22_gall.html) I still do not believe that he specifically asked for oil contracts to gauruntee income for his organistions, and this is what is alleged, not a series of one off payments, but an ongoing oil contract, it should not be too hard to determine if he or one of his charitable organisations has such a contract. As for the argument about if the documents were proven false, then the ‘Torygraph’ was acting in good faith, sorry it will not wash in UK courts and it is just an instrument with which to provide some semblance of deniability. If these allegations are false (and as yet they are nothing more than highly suspect allegations at best) the ‘Torygraph’ will be deemed to have libelled Galloway.If they are proven false then the provenance of the documents will be far more interesting, since they miraculously survived all the looting, fire and expenditure of cruise missiles, and yet so many other documents did not. There has been a concerted campaign to tarnish Galloway for many years, but every time he goes to law he wins, how strange, is it possible that his accusers are the ones who should be facing the inquiries ? [http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id=463082003&tid=818](http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id=463082003&tid=818) It is a classic strategy to include false information within a body of truthful information, some of the letters that have been found within this folder have been confirmed by Galloway to be written by him, mostly in matters relating to the Miriam appeal which I am sure most folk will already know was an appeal to obtain medical treatment for a child who would have died without it. The crucial document states that Galloway allegedly wanted a contract that would net his organisation with between 10 to 15 cents a barrel, and the ‘Torygraph’ then extrapolated a figure of £375k from the figures supposedly involved in this alleged contract.This is around 6 million barrels of oil per year,a significan amount indeed, but of this oil trading organisation, not a trace. This amount of oil would be sure to be part of a formal contract, there would have to be facilities for transferring oil, cash, intermediaries, employees all number of things besides. It is somewhat surprising that the company set up to carry out this trading has not been named in any document, just a few names of people who trade in other commodities in differant Middle Eastern markets. Is it possible that other Iraqi agents were using the Galloway name to cover their trading ? It is possible I suppose, it is possible that cover was needed to purchase banned imports but this is such a small operation in terms of the oil world and one would think it would be carried out exclusively outside Iraq. All we have is the text of a document whose provenance is very dubious, this document has not yet been formally examined for its authenticity and yet there are serious doubts as to why straight English word and intitials would be used in a text that is otherwise in Arabic, that certain symbols of office look amateurish on the documents and even that it is simply not the way the Iraqi foreign ministry formats such documents. What we have for certain is a massive distraction in the UK from issues such as why we went to war in the first place, just where are those WMD ? ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202/75 "2003-04-24T18:35:58Z")
[The Guardian outlines the dispute right here also.](http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,941191,00.html) Obviously, I don’t have any inside information on whether the allegations are true. Reading the Guardian article, which outlines the circumstances under which the documents were allegedly found, tends to add credibility to their authenticity. Galloway is making several shrill illogical arguments in response, > [@](#): > > The campaigning anti-war MP called the piece part of a plan of “black propaganda” and “intelligence hocus-pocus”. > > “I have never solicited, nor would I have accepted had I been offered, any financial assistance of any kind from the Iraqi regime,” he told BBC1’s Breakfast programme. > > “This is a pile of black propaganda, intelligence hocus pocus and the Daily Telegraph have either been a party to it or they have been hoodwinked by it. But either way, they will answer for it in front of the British courts.” > > …“The idea that such documents have, as if to order, come to light just days after the massive assault on Baghdad, the looting and destruction of its ministries and government buildings and the chaos in the country, must be treated as highly suspect.” I don’t have a lot of time to go into it, but these denials are incomplete, don’t connect with the facts as we now know them, and require a huge leap of faith. “Black operation”? Presumably they have black helicopters. Um, some proof for that would be nice. Of course, the lack of proof just proves how black the operation is. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Mojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Mojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202/76 "2003-04-24T18:39:11Z")
I’ve read his response and have already pointed out that it comes up lacking- his claim that “To the best of my knowledge (_cough_ weasel words _cough_), I have never met an officer of the Iraqi intelligence.” is completely implausable- if you were a foreign visitor to Iraq (especially a high profile one), you met with Iraqi Intelligence, period. You say “every time he goes to law he wins”, I say he’s been reprimanded several times for his shady dealings. As for who this organizations is and how it could’ve been achieved, [this article in the Independent](http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=399857) sheds some light. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202/77 "2003-04-24T19:09:23Z")
Well we can all speculate at mechanisms that make this possible, but they are not facts, and when facts are examined in court, Galloway wins, and his opponents arguments are often so weak that they settle out of court and apologise in public. Galloway has advocated very unpopular policies that earned him approbrium from all the right wing press, his stance on Northern Ireland is a case in point, and yet much of what he advocated is now mainstream policy and is cited as statesmanship when Blair is involved. Apply Occams razor here, a vociferous opponent of war has allegations made about him, surprisingly allegations have been made before when he opposed other policies.Each time he has held his accusers to account he has been proved right, his accusers have had to pay up and say sorry. Is it possible that he has been accused yet again and unjustly, or is he as dishonest as his other accusers have been proven to be ? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202/78 "2003-04-24T22:07:41Z")
The article isn’t up on their web site yet, but the [headline](http://www.csmonitor.com/news/2003/04/25/index.html) is. > [@](#): > > \*\*Newly found Iraqi files raise heat on British MP \*\* > > Documents indicate payments of more than $10 million for support of Labour Party official. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2003, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202/79 "2003-04-25T00:33:13Z")
I didn’t see this link, but here’s some more documentation: [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/24/ngall24.xml]How Saddam tried to cover up Galloway’s links with regime [/quote] Here’s the part that’s especially damning to the notion that the documents represent some low-level Iraqi intelligence guys running a scam of their own: > [@](#): > > A letter from Izzat Ibrahim, **Saddam’s deputy on the Ba’ath Party’s Revolutionary Command Council** , dated May 6, 2000 stated that: “It is better not to engage the Mukhabarat in the relationship with George Galloway, as he has been a well known politician since 1990, and discovery of his relationship with the Mukhabarat would damage him very much.” > … > The latest disclosure appears to confirm that Mr Galloway was working closely with powerful figures at the apex of Saddam’s regime. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2003, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202/80 "2003-04-25T00:44:31Z")
Oops. Sorry for the screwed up link. Preview is your friend. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/galloway-was-in-saddams-pay-is-this-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/170202.md?page=5)