Excellent post! I appreciate your taking the time to put it together and your ability to see through his BS.
Well the report doesn’t claim it has incontrovertible evidence. It simply makes it known that Galloway’s charity has been linked to fraud, and that Galloway has been personally linked to a man in the Iraq administration who was known for some very shady dealings.
It’s certainly a start. With the evidence we have there’s a good chance you could impeach a President or force them to resign if it came up about them.
Hmmm… I didn’t read the report that you’re referring to( a link forthcoming perhaps?), but wasn’t receiving oil credits the gist of the allegations? This he vehemently denied.
Does the name “Ahmed Chalabi” ring any bells?
I’ve yet to see anything like this with Bush involving Chalabi. If you have some relevant sources you can link me.
As for the Senate report I think it’s up on CSPAN as I was looking at it earlier but I’m having trouble digging it up. Anyways it’s a public document so if one wants to find it (I’ll link to it after I’ve found it but it may take awhile) you can check the Senate website, Google, and possible the Library of Congress’ THOMAS service.
Just because you say it, doesn’t make it so…
They never will learn. Show me the money. That’s all I have to say. Maybe people from the U.K. don’t trust him but to us here in the U.S., we have waited a long time to hear someone get up in front of those crooked bastards and call them a bunch of liars to their faces. I liked it because the man has some balls.
But more to the point, who feels that this and the Newsweek article are more from the “Mother of all smokescreens”? Galloway was right on one account, and this has seen little light here in the U.S., that that liar Bush was planning the war (Downing Street Memo) from the beginning. Well, we have been confronted with BU$HCO lies before and did nothing. Who else is getting tired of being told lie after lie with thousands of lives hanging in the balance? What is the breaking point of the American people?
I haven’t had much luck searching out the transcript either. Not a worry. Someone should be able to find it soon.
I did manage to find his opening statement .
In his statement, Galloway, states "You state that The Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and 1993 whilst you are dealing with documents dating from 2001. Senator, The Daily Telegraph’s documents date identically to the documents that you were dealing with in your report here.
…
Your documents and the Daily Telegraph documents deal with exactly the same period. "
This is subtly but substantially different from saying they are the same documents as you stated he did. Although, I’m not sure how he could support that statement or if he eventually did.
At least one of the allegations involving his charity was new and he specifically denied any connection to the oil company in question.
It’s my impression at this point that he probably didn’t present any evidence to back himself up, but he did specifically address the main allegations of the subcommittee.
Or perhaps that they are good forgeries and he can’t prove them otherwise. What else could he do in that situation? You seem to assume that if a document is forged then there must be some way to prove it.
Take these documents away and what evidence is there? As far as I can tell so far, none whatsoever.
Forgeries actually aren’t terribly difficult to disprove from what I understand.
All the committee has is photocopies of documents, not originals and until G is provided with the originals he has no way to disprove them - pretty obviously. Nothing could be easier to add a sig to than a photocopy. No evidence whatsoever. Just a smear campaign.
Galloway 10 Warmongering scum 0.
You made a claim and alluded vaguely to a document; please find the relevant document and cite the relevant parts, or refrain from this kind of posturing.
Strange that he’s having such trouble finding it.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that unseen documents and unchallenged testimony of those spending months and years in the well-documented tender care of US interrogators is reliable :rolleyes: all this contains is allegations that Fawaz Zureqat and his various companies might have benefited.
I’ve no doubt Saddam did try and reward people speaking out aganst the sanctions and war. This in no way proves motive on Galloway’s part or that he knew anything about what Z was doing. All he was interested in was donations. There is no evidence that he benefited personally and no evidence that money in the Appeal was mis-used (and no, it was not a charity).
So - no substantive evidence at all. Unchallenged witnesses and unpresented documents. There is not one shred of evidence he personally benefitted here or in years of effort by the right-wing press in the UK.
This is just a piss-poor attempt at discrediting a critic not a serious report.
And for Hyde - only when substantive evidence is presented and the accused has open access to the evidence and his accusers has Galloway anything to rebut.
As he’s been targetted with false evidence before, even people like me who can’t stand the man, have to give him the benefit of the doubt. As should any fair-minded person.
And just to add to that last point, I think the telling thing is that the Senate made their allegations publicly BEFORE giving Galloway a chance to rebut them in any way. That also suggests to me that he did not have early access to the documentation that they were using to accuse him - nor will they say which ‘senior Iraqi official’ named him in the first place.
A smear campaign, badly done, which has rightly blown up in their faces.
Oh and Martin Hyde, if only impeachment could be brought on the same level of evidence. Given that there is much, much more evidence that this was an illegal war, and given that there have, as yet, not been any moves to impeach on this evidence, I contend that you’re statement was just hyperbole. Rather like the Senate’s I guess.