Re: [OPE-L] Galloway visits Congress

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Wed May 25 2005 - 08:28:51 EDT

See , "Galloway and the US

I believe Galloway was on p. 1 of USA Today and the London Financial
Times.  But I didn't study the coverage.

Paul Z.

RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY,  Paul Zarembka, editor,  Elsevier Science

On Wed, 25 May 2005, Bill Cochrane wrote:

> Further to the forward of Galloways address, what, if any has been the
> domestic US coverage and response to this? I watched the video of some
> of the address and if for no other reason than the brilliance and
> passion of Galloways delivery it's well worth a look.
> Bill Cochrane
> Research Fellow
> Population Studies Centre
> Centre for Labour and Trade Union Studies
> University of Waikato
> New Zealand
> Ph 64 7 838 4023
> Cell 021 346300
> Fax 64 7 838 4654
> ________________________________
> From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Bullock
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 4:35 AM
> Subject: [OPE-L] Galloway visits Congress
> Published on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 by the Times Online (UK)
> Galloway vs. The US Senate: Transcript of Statement
> George Galloway, Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, delivered this
> statement to US Senators today who have accused him of corruption
> "Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader. and 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.
> "Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in
> Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea
> of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty.
> You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a
> single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written
> to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever.
> And you call that justice.
> "Now I want to deal with the pages that relate to me in this dossier and
> I want to point out areas where there are - let's be charitable and say
> errors. Then I want to put this in the context where I believe it ought
> to be. On the very first page of your document about me you assert that
> I have had 'many meetings' with Saddam Hussein. This is false.
> "I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in
> August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be
> described as "many meetings" with Saddam Hussein.
> "As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number
> of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld
> met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those
> guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering
> and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and
> persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons
> inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings
> with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defense made of
> his.
> "I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans
> governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to
> demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American
> officials were going in and doing commerce.
> "You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the
> 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better
> record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other
> member of the British or American governments do.
> "Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to
> quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from
> the source is true, that I am 'the owner of a company which has made
> substantial profits from trading in Iraqi oil'.
> "Senator, I do not own any companies, beyond a small company whose
> entire purpose, whose sole purpose, is to receive the income from my
> journalistic earnings from my employer, Associated Newspapers, in
> London. I do not own a company that's been trading in Iraqi oil. And you
> have no business to carry a quotation, utterly unsubstantiated and
> false, implying otherwise.
> "Now you have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names
> from Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of
> your puppet government in Baghdad. If you had any of the letters against
> me that you had against Zhirinovsky, and even Pasqua, they would have
> been up there in your slideshow for the members of your committee today.
> "You have my name on lists provided to you by the Duelfer inquiry,
> provided to him by the convicted bank robber, and fraudster and conman
> 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.
> "There were 270 names on that list originally. That's somehow been
> filleted down to the names you chose to deal with in this committee.
> Some of the names on that committee included the former secretary to his
> Holiness Pope John Paul II, the former head of the African National
> Congress Presidential office and many others who had one defining
> characteristic in common: they all stood against the policy of sanctions
> and war which you vociferously prosecuted and which has led us to this
> disaster.
> "You quote Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Well, you have something on me,
> I've never met Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Your sub-committee apparently
> has. But I do know that he's your prisoner, I believe he's in Abu Ghraib
> prison. I believe he is facing war crimes charges, punishable by death.
> In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat
> prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Airbase, in Guantanamo Bay,
> including 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. But you quote 13
> words from Dahar Yassein Ramadan whom I have never met. If he said what
> he said, then he is wrong.
>  "And if you had any evidence that I had ever engaged in any actual oil
> transaction, if you had any evidence that anybody ever gave me any
> money, it would be before the public and before this committee today
> because I agreed with your Mr Greenblatt [Mark Greenblatt, legal counsel
> on the committee].
> "Your Mr Greenblatt was absolutely correct. What counts is not the names
> on the paper, what counts is where's the money. Senator? Who paid me
> hundreds of thousands of dollars of money? The answer to that is nobody.
> And if you had anybody who ever paid me a penny, you would have produced
> them today.
> "Now you refer at length to a company names in these documents as Aredio
> Petroleum. I say to you under oath here today: I have never heard of
> this company, I have never met anyone from this company. This company
> has never paid a penny to me and I'll tell you something else: I can
> assure you that Aredio Petroleum has never paid a single penny to the
> Mariam Appeal Campaign. Not a thin dime. I don't know who Aredio
> Petroleum are, but I daresay if you were to ask them they would confirm
> that they have never met me or ever paid me a penny.
> "Whilst I'm on that subject, who is this senior former regime official
> that you spoke to yesterday? Don't you think I have a right to know?
> Don't you think the Committee and the public have a right to know who
> this senior former regime official you were quoting against me
> interviewed yesterday actually is?
> "Now, one of the most serious of the mistakes you have made in this set
> of documents is, to be frank, such a schoolboy howler as to make a fool
> of the efforts that you have made. You assert on page 19, not once but
> twice, that the documents that you are referring to cover a different
> period in time from the documents covered by The Daily Telegraph which
> were a subject of a libel action won by me in the High Court in England
> late last year.
> "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. None of The
> Daily Telegraph's documents dealt with a period of 1992, 1993. I had
> never set foot in Iraq until late in 1993 - never in my life. There
> could possibly be no documents relating to Oil-for-Food matters in 1992,
> 1993, for the Oil-for-Food scheme did not exist at that time.
> "And yet you've allocated a full section of this document to claiming
> that your documents are from a different era to the Daily Telegraph
> documents when the opposite is true. Your documents and the Daily
> Telegraph documents deal with exactly the same period.
> "But perhaps you were confusing the Daily Telegraph action with the
> Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor did indeed
> publish on its front pages a set of allegations against me very similar
> to the ones that your committee have made. They did indeed rely on
> documents which started in 1992, 1993. These documents were unmasked by
> the Christian Science Monitor themselves as forgeries.
> "Now, the neo-con websites and newspapers in which you're such a hero,
> senator, were all absolutely cock-a-hoop at the publication of the
> Christian Science Monitor documents, they were all absolutely convinced
> of their authenticity. They were all absolutely convinced that these
> documents showed me receiving $10 million from the Saddam regime. And
> they were all lies.
> "In the same week as the Daily Telegraph published their documents
> against me, the Christian Science Monitor published theirs which turned
> out to be forgeries and the British newspaper, Mail on Sunday, purchased
> a third set of documents which also upon forensic examination turned out
> to be forgeries. So there's nothing fanciful about this. Nothing at all
> fanciful about it.
> "The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial
> activities with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact. It's a proven fact
> that these forged documents existed and were being circulated amongst
> right-wing newspapers in Baghdad and around the world in the immediate
> aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi regime.
> "Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you
> promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass
> killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million
> Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew
> that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that
> they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my
> heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit
> in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a
> pack of lies.
> "I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have
> weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims,
> that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to
> your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I
> told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would
> resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the
> fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the
> end of the beginning.
> "Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and
> you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives;
> 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies;
> 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
> If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded,
> if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as
> some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the
> anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we
> are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are
> trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the
> theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth.
> "Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14
> months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8
> billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at
> Halliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's
> money, but the money of the American taxpayer.
> "Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were
> shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who
> knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American
> military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting
> it or weighing it.
> "Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today,
> revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest
> sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French
> politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the
> connivance of your own Government."
> (c) 2005 Times Newspapers

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 26 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT