British MP denies oil-for-food charges

Falstaff

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/...ood/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4557279.stm

British MP denies oil-for-food charges Called the probe the 'mother of all smokescreens'

Galloway, 51, is a leading critic of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his alliance with President Bush in the war in Iraq. He was re-elected on an antiwar platform earlier this month.

He said he was "friendly" with former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz and met him many times but that he met with Saddam only twice in his career -- in 1994 and in 2002 -- the last time to persuade Saddam to allow U.N. weapons inspectors into the country.

He said he had met with Saddam "exactly as many times as Donald Rumsfeld has met with him."

"The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and give him maps," Galloway said in a heated opening statement.

"I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second occasion, I met him to try and persuade him to allow Hans Blix and U.N. inspectors back into country,"

Rumsfeld visited Baghdad to meet Saddam as President Reagan's Middle East envoy in the 1980s, when the U.S. sided with Iraq in its war with Iran. Blix was chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq before the war.

Galloway complained that the panel had determined his guilt without speaking to him.

"You have my name on lists provided to you... by the convicted bank robber and fraudster and con man Ahmed Chalabi, who many people, to their credit, in your country now realize played a decisive role in leading your country into the disaster in Iraq," Galloway told the Senate panel.

Other allegations reportedly came from Iraqi detainees.

"In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Air Base [Afghanistan], in Guantanamo Bay -- including, if I may say, British citizens being held in those places -- I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances," he said.

The Senate subcommittee has alleged in recent days that a number of European politicians were rewarded by Saddam for supporting Iraq's bid to lift economic sanctions imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.

The subcommittee report, relying on Iraqi Oil Ministry documents and interviews with detained Saddam loyalists, alleged that Galloway received allocations for 20 million barrels from June 2000 to June 2003 and arranged for two companies, Aredio Petroleum-France and Middle East Advanced Semiconductor Inc., to take delivery of the crude.

Galloway said he never heard of Aredio, but confirmed that the president of Middle East ASI, Jordanian businessman named Fawaz Zureikat, was a good friend and the second-biggest benefactor of a British charity he started called Mariam's Appeal.

Zureikat donated about $600,000. A British probe of the charity "found no impropriety" in fund-raising, Galloway said.

"He may have signed an oil contract. It had nothing to do with me," Galloway said. "I was aware he was doing extensive business with Iraq. I did not know the details of it. It was not my business."

Europeans implicated

In addition to Galloway, the panel also implicated former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, who allegedly was allocated 11 million barrels.

"I wrote to Mr. Coleman," Pasqua said Sunday, "and I told him that all allegations about myself are false."

Russian Deputy Parliament Speaker Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who was accused Monday of receiving 76 million barrels of Iraqi crude oil, denied the accusation.

"I've never signed any contract and never received a cent from Iraq," Zhirinovsky told a Russian TV interviewer.

Oil ended up in U.S.

The panels seem to agree that three-quarters of the oil Iraq was permitted to export under oil-for-food ended up in the United States, though U.S. firms directly purchased less than 1 percent of the crude.

A new report from Democrats on the Senate subcommittee concludes the United States ended up with a majority of the oil lifted from Iraq after vendors paid illicit surcharges of 10 cents to 30 cents a barrel to Saddam.

Investigators have estimated Saddam pocketed at least $2 billion by extorting the surcharges and kickbacks on humanitarian goods purchased.

While oil-for-food was operating from 1996 to 2003, Saddam got to choose the buyers of 3.4 billion barrels of oil that sold for $64 billion.

The oil revenue went into a U.N.-controlled bank account that doled out money for U.N.-approved sales of food, medicine and supplies to Iraq.

The illicit surcharges were typically wired into Iraq-controlled bank accounts in Lebanon, Oman and an Iraqi-front company in the United Arab Emirates, or paid in cash to Iraqi embassies and flown to Baghdad.

Of the $228 million in surcharged oil, the Democratic report found the United States imported 525 million barrels, or 52 percent of it.

Among the biggest end users of this oil were Valero, Premcor, Alon USA, and Exxon, according to the report.


I just have to say, without first knowing who this chap is and listening to his barrage of insults and diatribe and his keen wit, I would have to say he defended himself with great skill and is the worthy opponent of anyone on Capital Hill. Whether folks think he is a crank or a hero, he has courage and an accent that kept my colleagues and I rivited for several minutes, this is British politics that I had heard so much about....LOL
I can see this fellow bending over and showing his rump to the Senate even now...LOL

We dont get alot of this kind of heated debate and rhetoric here in America, the best we can offer is Tom Dashale, and he is off the bench now...LOL

his claims or counterclaims are very very entertaining to Democrats but his finger points at all of the Bush Administration. I have to give this guy credit, he doesnt have to back up his counter claims any more than we have to back ours up....but still, it was very very entertaining if not informative..

raid517

Lol good old George Galloway. He is a thorn in the side of even the most prominent members of the British establishment. I rarely agree with everything he says - but I do think that possibly the subcommitteee and the American government in general may have bitten off silighly more than they can chew in attempting to implicate Mr Galloway. Indeed he has just finished dragging several of the UK's most prestigeous newspapers and several members of the British government through the courts for making similar allegations and he pretty much trounced them all - and completely disproved all of the charges against him. Not only that but he managed to win a fairly huge sum in damages in the process.

Having said this British politics in general is significantly less reverential and respectful towards leadership than American politics. There used to be an element of this in American politics I think - but this has been significantly depleted - particularly in recent years - and significanly so since September the 11th. Questioning the leadership is simply not the done thing in America any more.

In any case if you really want to see genuinely informed and heated rhetoric you should try watching Prime Minister's question time - particularly during a crisis or an election. It can get really pretty brutal at times. But to me this is much closer to my ideal of what a real democratic debate should be.

(BTW there hasn't been a question time for today yet).

GJ

Falstaff

I was mesmerized by the logic in his arguments, he clearly has no problem sticking right back to the assholes in our own government that cast espersions..

raid517

Lol George Galloway will have no compunction in sticking it right back to them in every sense and measure that they might devise in attempting to stick it to him. They have (perhaps inadvertantly) given him a platform - and I have no doubt that he will relish this and attempt to use it to it's fullest extent.

He has an axe to grind (and more than this a message to bare) so he will not be made silent easily. The hard times he experienced recently in the UK were due to information (or misinformation) that was leaked to the British press and other members of the British establishment by certain elements within the American government. He disproved these - and now several very significant figures in the British elite are very sorry (and very much poorer) for ever having opted to cross swords with Mr Galloway. It will be very interesting to hear what he has to say over the comming days and weeks.

GJ

Falstaff

I know the democrats thought they would profit from the whole affair, but it has bitten them in the arse though..LOL

trodas

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...486025,00.html

Thumbs up for Galloway

Shame on US Senators for accusing him wrongly, not apologizing (yet) and creating true smoke, when commenting his words as "unconvincing"

Well, so much for US Senators

Falstaff

Its a bloody fiasco, I am a republican and a staunch support of the present administration but this chap really spanked some congressional rumps...LOL....got to love it?
Is he Scottish?

raid517

Yes very! We Scots are noted at times for our somewhat firey temprament. The problem with the committee was that it really didn't have very much at all on him - so it was easy for George to address what they said and make the charges they put to him look as flimsy as they were. He had already conclusively disproved these charges in the British courts - and so was only too happy to do so in front of the committee.

It was an certainly an interesting example of British palamentary democracy in action (though perhaps by no means unique - at least not in the sense of what is normal within our own country - though I must say I particularly admired his cheeky reference to the similarities of the investigations of the committee and the McCarthy show trials.

Lol he even did some 'sanctions busting' of his own by smoking a big fat Havana cigar right inside the heart of the Senate moments before his appearance, so there is no doubt that he had the kahonies to take them on and that he genuinely relished the oportunity to state his case.

Unfortunately George came back home yesterday (he does have a consituency to run after all) so you guys might not be hearing from him again for a while. I think perhaps that the comittee might not be too keen to hear from him again either - as after his performance they might well be inspired to just quietly let the matter drop.

Best regards,

GJ

Falstaff

He was a hoot, I cant wait for someone to pick on him again, a return engagement would be welcome..