Here is the CSM article.
I just skimmed this for quotes. Correct me if I’m wrong. I think this is new evidence found by the CSM which corroborates the Mirror story.
Well on the balance of current information, it seems that there’s a lot of hints that Galloway was up to something - whether it was personal gain or some other purpose, nefarious or otherwise.
Either that or it’s an exceptionally well planned disinformation campaign.
Where’s Occam when you need a shave?
As for whether this is the tip of the iceberg - WRT the UK, it (hopefully) looks like it isn’t - otherwise the conveniently placed “Britain” box would have contained other prominent names that the Torygraph would have splashed on the front page.
However long your memory, it’s misleading you. It was the Daily Mirror (helped by The Cook Report), not the Telegraph, which printed the allegations by the former NUM chief executive, Roger Windsor, although, of course, all the other papers then covered the story as well. Nor did Scargill sue, or at least didn’t sue the Mirror or the Telegraph. What did happen was that the inquiry set up to investigate the allegations dismissed some of them, but that Scargill then sued the QC who had conducted the inquiry over matters only indirectly related to the original allegations and won. Moreover, the former Mirror editor, Roy Greenslade, has since admitted that he was duped. So whatever else this proves, it’s not that the Telegraph has form.
As for Galloway, the Telegraph’s story is not as implausible as some of you want to believe - masses of paperwork filed together in bulk can be surprisingly resilient, even to bombing, fire and looting. The real question is whether the rest of the box’s contents stand up to scrutiny. Did the Telegraph and/or the security services go to the trouble of faking those as well?
There were 3 boxes, one marked France, one marked britain, and one marked USA.
Why is it the only scandal to come out of these three boxes is for Galloway?
who wants to take bets that the contents of these boxes produces other “convenient scandals?”
Well, I gotta confess, Saddam has been paying me to oppose the war here on the Straight Dope and a few other online sites. But the pay hasn’t been fantastic. So far all I’ve gotten is a 4x8’ Thomas Kinkade painting of a gal in a chain mail bikini and a guy in armor who looks kinda like Saddam fighting with a dragon, and a ‘genuine sword of Damascus’ with “made in China” stamped on the pommel.
You got screwed. Uday sends me gold plated AK-47s just to keep my mouth shut.
Generally, I’d just like to point out that the Christian Science Monitor is not some kind of rag (don’t let the name fool you). They found their own evidence of payments. Galloway fell victim to the hubris of Iraqi bureaucracy. “Those infidels will never enter Baghdad. They are committing suicide at the gates. Etc…”
Commission to examine how Galloway used charity fund
And the band played on. He’s toast.
Nice little Portugese villa he has there. What is that, about 5,000 sq. ft. of pool deck?
I propose that we all go down to George Galloway MP (but not for long)'s place and boogie down! Who’s with me?
Damn. You get paid more for not talking than I do for talking. I feel like one of those freaking farmers who’s losing money growing wheat while the farmer next door is getting paid by the gummint not to raise corn.
Mark Steyn weighs in with this amusing column.
This thread was pretty focused Galloway. I also wanted to discuss other possible recipients of Saddam’s largesse. Hence the new thread.
This article agrees that Galloway was just the tip of the iceberg.
Will anyone else be caught up in this scandal? What’s the prognosis?
I doubt that there are that many more people in the US that could be caught up. Thompson appears to have gone to Iraq almost as some sort of holiday (he hasn’t been in the press as much as the other two), and Bonior was probably just being grouchy (he had his district destroyed from under him, and he did poorly in the Dem primary for Governor of Michigan.)
Sharing this with you all. A rather badly written article, but does give you a local response:
http://www.menareport.com/story/TheNews.php3?sid=248069&lang=e&dir=mena
From what I’ve read Galloway has still only threatened to sue for libel; he has not gone ahead and done so. And as Aussie columnist Tim Blair noted, “The charity spent £860,000 on anti-sanctions campaigns, expenses and administration, and only £100,000 on the kid. She was effectively used as a front for a propaganda operation.” I wholeheartedly agree.
Christian Science Monitor apologises to Galloway.
I knew, in the interests of fairness, you’d want to apologise and retract.
When come back, bring humble pie.
The CSM said their documents were forged. But, the CSM didn’t say that the Telegraph’s documents were forged.
The Monitor screwed up, but Galloway isn’t off the hook.
of course, The Telegraph found them in a box marked “UK” that had miraculously escaped being destroyed, like everything else in the room where they were found (along with two other boxes, conveniently marked “France” and “US”).
Yea right, The Telegraph got the good forgeries. Show some class, just for once in your life and admit you’ve rushed to libellous judgement yet again.
Anyone with a micron of common sense could see this was a fit-up from the off but no, it’s the tip of a handy club shaped iceberg for you to beat on the anti-war crowd. Now it’s melting in your hands, so much scotch mist, like the one made out of Niger uranium.
:rolleyes:
ok i tlooks pretty obvious that the papers were forged but this raisises some big questions. This could indeed be the tip of another type of iceberg. Who would want to frame this guy? He thinks its western intelleginece agents and I’m usually not that paranoid, but can anyone else come up with a plausible source?