MedfordTim's Swiftboating

MedfordTim wrote:

Here's a link to a 23 minute interview with George Galloway at his best on a British "Meet the Press" type show that magnifies the sort of mambly-pambly questioning our "leaders" go through. George doesn't mince many words, and I'd like to see anyone swift boat him - now THAT would be Entertainment! See if the interviewer can coax George into telling us how he really feels about Tony Blair (I hope that joke isn't lost on everybody...)

And if you're like me, wish that we had some firebrands like him over here (no disrespect, John Conyers)

MedfordTim also wrote:

Maybe their evidence is as flimsy as Norm Coleman's against George Galloway (that is...non-existant...) or the FBI lost some crucial bit of evidence.

Tim, you asked for a swiftboating of George Galloway. You got it.

George Galloway, the MP who campaigned against the Iraq war, is to be suspended from parliament over his links to the United Nations oil-for-food programme in Iraq.

The parliamentary standards watchdog will rule this week that Galloway failed properly to declare his links to a charitable appeal partially funded from money made by selling Iraqi oil under Saddam Hussein, according to a source close to the inquiry. The one-month suspension for Galloway, often referred to as "Gorgeous George", is one of the most severe given to an MP.

Galloway, who was expelled from Labour, is now an MP for the Respect party. He may also be asked to apologise to the Commons for his behaviour but will launch a robust defence of his conduct. He denies any wrongdoing.

The UN oil-for-food programme was set up to allow Saddam to sell Iraqi oil to buy humanitarian supplies, but he corruptly awarded oil contracts to politicians and businessmen around the world.

In 1998 Galloway founded the Mariam Appeal, which campaigned for the lifting of sanctions on Iraq. The appeal, which paid Galloway's wife and funded international travel for the MP, received almost £450,000 from Fawaz Zureikat, a Jordanian businessman who was also a trustee of the appeal. It subsequently emerged that more than half of this money came from the proceeds of Iraqi oil sales. An investigation by the American Senate alleged that the Mariam Appeal was used by the Iraqi regime to finance Galloway.

However, the MP strenuously denies that he was complicit in any such arrangement and claims he is the victim of a smear campaign. He says he had no idea that the money donated had come from Iraqi oil sales. [LINK]

But is Galloway telling the truth that he had no idea that the money was from sale of Iraqi oil?

George Galloway personally thanked Saddam Hussein for his regime's financial backing in a campaign against sanctions on Iraq, and even asked him to raise the payments, according to a Commons report.

He also offered to help to set up an Iraqi satellite television channel in collaboration with Saddam, broadcasting in English, months before the war began.

An account of their meeting, published for the first time in a Commons report into Mr Galloway's failure to declare his financial backers, contradicts the MP's repeated insistence that he was unaware of receiving money from the former Iraqi regime.

The record was unearthed by Sir Philip Mawer, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, during a four-year inquiry into the Respect MP's activities. [LINK]

George Galloway not only knew where the money was coming from, he begged for more.

From the transcript of George Galloway's meeting with Saddam Hussein on 8 August, 2002:

"Thank you very much Mr President. Finally, may I say that our work has been going on for years and I believe that Your Excellency is aware of the results which we have achieved. Mr Tariq Aziz has helped us with his contacts and has used his influence to facilitate our job and facilitate the mechanism by which we have been able to obtain the funding necessary to finance our activities. But, we are now suffering from the problem of the price of oil which has resulted in a reduction in our income and delay in receiving our dues." [LINK]

George Galloway received proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil to fund his political campaign to keep Saddam Hussein securely ensconced as Iraq's dictator.

< Jung Jurks Enough! Diary on DailyKos | The Disappearing Act In Iraq >
 Display:
You're getting a condensed version of an earlier attempt which is now floating in the ether due to clumsy button pushing. Forgive the bluntness, nothing intended.

"Sir Philip is coy about how he obtained the document..."

Same source as the "Yellow Cake" intelligence?

"The Commons Standards and Privileges Committee said that there was “strong circumstantial evidence” that Mr Galloway “connived” with the former Iraqi Government to accept financial backing for his campaign against Western sanctions."

Sir Philip better watch his wallet. Ol' George has already won one suit over this. Doesn't pay to try embarassing him.

See the difference here? George immediately strikes his own message out there instead of playing 'defense' by staying silent ala Kerry. That's why they can't Swiftboat him - either it's all true (unlike the swiftboaters allegations) or it's another load of crap. The one certain thing is George won't just roll over and let them have their way with him. He flings the crap back at his attackers.

Was I right? Entertaining as hell!

 “Yet again I have been cleared of taking a single penny or in any way personally benefiting from the former Iraqi regime through the Oil-for-Food programme or any other means.”

You didn't mention that the report is a couple of weeks old and that he was ejected while defending himself. In fact, "As he was ordered from the chamber, he shouted that he would continue his speech outside for anyone who wanted to hear it." - link

Now, THAT is how one fights swiftboaters!

Thanks, Twba. I missed all this completely. Good to know he's still fighting the good fight.

by MedfordTim on 08/10/2007 10:05:37 PM EST

Hell, it's a two week old story! Even **I** can move THAT fast!

...help me over to my walker and I'll show ya!

by MedfordTim on 08/10/2007 10:08:27 PM EST

How DID I let all this slip by me? Absolutely fascinating! This appendix to the report that you referenced (with a VERY misleading sentence, btw) is masterfully done. I wish WE could get such clear and concise reports from OUR government.

I especially liked the part that read:

"(C) DID MR GALLOWAY DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THROUGH HIS APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE IN BAGHDAD, MR FAWAZ ZUREIKAT, GAIN ANY BENEFIT FROM MONEY DERIVED, EITHER THROUGH THE OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAMME OR BY OTHER MEANS, FROM THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME?"

"281. Subject to what I have said in the previous paragraph, I have not found evidence during my inquiry that Mr Galloway has, directly and personally, unlawfully received moneys derived from the former Iraqi regime, either via the Oil for Food Programme or by some other means."

Gosh...I guess you didn't read down that far...or below tha...

"If I had found evidence that Mr Galloway had, directly and personally, unlawfully received moneys from the former Iraqi regime, his culpability, if any, in this respect would have been a matter to be tested in the criminal courts, to the criminal standard of proof. However, as I have said in paragraph 281 above, I have not found such evidence. "

Emphasis mine.


Too bad you get confused between someone wanting to end the sanctions and keeping "Saddam Hussein securely ensconced as Iraq's dictator." There IS a difference, you know. The sanctions were wrong and deadly; they needed stopping.

Just like our current occupation should be stopped.

by MedfordTim on 08/10/2007 11:30:53 PM EST

Gosh...I guess you didn't read down that far...or below tha...

Gosh, Tim. I read the entire report and appendix. Galloway received money derived from the former Iraqi regime via the Oil for Food Program. Saddam's regime awarded oil allocations to George Galloway and Fawaz Zureikat. A portion of the proceeds from the sale of that oil was deposited to the joint bank account of George Galloway and his wife. The only reasonable conclusion is that Galloway received that money for his lobbying on behalf of Saddam.

The sanctions were wrong and deadly; they needed stopping.

It was Saddam who diverted Oil For Food funds from their intended purchases of food and lifesaving medicines to construction of presidential palaces and bribes of foreign officials like George Galloway. Saddam was wrong and deadly and needed stopping.

by Twba on 08/11/2007 08:45:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
...see different things, I guess - because you and I sure come up with differing bottom lines.

The one thing we agree on is Saddam was a bad person.

by MedfordTim on 08/11/2007 10:47:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I’m not going to try and pretend that Saddam was a good guy, and I don’t grieve his death, but to try and paint Saddam as some kind of threat can certainly be challenged by history.

Saddam was an ally to the United States when we were supplying him with weapons while he was our proxy fighting a war with Iran.

Iraq was much more progressive than the Theocratic government of Iran, and in fact the Baath Party was a secular government similar to the government of Turkey that we currently promote as the model for Iraq.

Saddam’s government had some of the most secular legislature in the region. Women had much more freedom in Iraq than in Iran or other Muslim countries.

So in the fight against Islamic Fascist Muslims, Iraq was one country not controlled by the “Church” and fought against theocracy.

The first Gulf War was partly our own fault.

The border dispute with Kuwait had been going on for some time and Iraq had legitimate arguments when it came to the border dispute which had been carved out by Britian.
 
Our U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie Iraq told Saddam when he informed her that he planned to annex Kuwait that the United States viewed the matter as regional dispute and we would not interfere militarily, basically giving the green light to someone we had supported and were allied with against the theocratic governments in the region.

Iraq was also heavily in debt from the extended war with Iran, and Saddam viewed the war as a service to other Arab nations acting as a buffer with Iran, but the other nations would not help Iraq satisfy their debt.

The dispute with Kuwait had been going on since 1929 when for it’s own economic reasons Britain set the borders between Iraq and Kuwait, leaving Iraq with less than 40 miles of Gulf coastline unsuitable for building maritime ports, leaving the Shatt al-Arab River as Iraq's only means of access to the gulf, a river it shares with Iran.

Iraq had been challenging this border since its inception and had made no progress toward resolving it. Kuwait which has had a much more stable government and maintained a firm position that any concessions on its part would only lead to more demands.

Oil prices, and Kuwait taking advantage of Iraq’s situation with the war by increasing oil production to keep oil prices down caused Saddam to make an amazing blunder in invading Kuwait, but the blame is not all his, as he proceeded with the assurances from our governments representative that the United States would not get involve.

As to Saddam being a deadly, there is no doubt to those who opposed his rule he was a butcher (but certainly not the only one and probably not the worst in the region) him but as to being a threat to the United States…..

Funny how Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice didn’t believe it before 9-11

Some people had figured it out early on such as U.S. Rep. Lynn Rivers

"It is pointed out again and again that containment has worked. In the last 12 years Iraq has attacked no one, has engaged in no terror activities, and, certainly, has not crossed the United States," Rivers said. She added that the decision to go to war should not be about Hussein's leadership, but about whether war is necessary to protect the United States against an attack.
The majority of (Americans originally from Iraq), they are against the war. They know the country is going to be destroyed and hundreds and thousands are going to be killed," he said.

If a war on Iraq does happen, Rivers said, it could lead to a "fiscal disaster" for the United States.

The weapons inspectors found no evidence of WMD’s and reported that Iraq was cooperating and were seeking more time.

Meanwhile, inspectors have said that Iraqi officials have been cooperative. The chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said that inspectors have been turning up unannounced and have been given the access they need to all sites. Blix told CNN that the inspectors need more time--maybe as long as six months--to accurately determine whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. He was set to make another report to the Security Council on March 1.

So basically against the best advise regional experts had to offer, the Bush administration took us to war against an enemy that had no ability to defend itself, destabilized a secular country that had nothing to do with terrorist attacks against us, created what experts consider a training ground for new terrorist, turned world opinion against the United States weakening our position in the world, weakened our military by grossly over deploring them in a region were sectarian violence puts them in the middle of a civil war were the enemy is undefined, and the mission unclear and putting a strain on the economy by costing billions that cannot be used for important domestic issues, such as maintaining our infrastructure.  

All this while the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks is still running free, and as a new report shows

The Al Qaeda terror network, responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, has reestablished a safe haven in Pakistan, retained its top leadership, and trained new operatives in Iraq -- and now poses a "heightened threat" of another massive attack on the United States, according to the summary of a joint American intelligence assessment.

The war in Iraq's role in this?

the U.S. occupation of Iraq has provided them with a potent rallying cry, recruiting tool and training ground they would not have had otherwise

Other than that I suppose things are going swimmingly.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 08/11/2007 12:49:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Since the discussion got turned away from George anyhow, might as well ask...

Ken, do you think a sovereign nation has the right to decide it's own defense policy or should all nations conduct themselves as the USA sees fit?

by MedfordTim on 08/11/2007 01:22:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"feverishly"? No.

Do I think he would be pursuing weapons? Sure. Why not?

"In every case, we started with negotiation and diplomacy."

Actually, in most of those you cite (and many, MANY others) we started by selling them armaments.

Love the irony, huh?

Far as body counts go, we are the worst "rogue nation" in history. And yet, we still have WMD.

More of that "irony" thing....

by MedfordTim on 08/11/2007 02:09:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And we couldn't negotiate with him.

Why do you believe we couldn't negotiate with him?

Saddam tried to negotiate with us prior to our invasion. The weapons inspectors reported he was cooperating and progress was being made. It was Bush's position not to negotiate with him.

And he was destabilizing to the region, as evidenced by his attack on Kuwait and Iran.

We and the rest of the region, and most of the world supported him in his war against Iran, and we gave him the polite nod of approval when he told us he intended to annex Kuwait.

Saddam was evil and RICH

Saddam, was also disarmed, contained, and no imminent threat, we had inspectors on the ground to insure he did not acquire nuclear weapons or other WMD's.

If Saddam Hussein was President of Iraq today, would he be trying to acquire nuclear weapons to balance the projection of power from his sworn enemy, Iran?

Saddam’s sworn enemy “Iran” is currently trying desperately to acquire nuclear weapons, and if still in power do you think Saddam would be cooperating with the United States to insure that didn’t happen, or would he be photographed holding hands with Iran’s president a Shiite like the current leader of Iraq also a Shiite?

I suppose that’s better than a secular Saddam who fought Iran for years with our support and approval?

If you say so!!!

Ken, your obsession with Clinton is just sad.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 08/11/2007 03:37:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Look at how far you've come! Three whole replies in a single thread before you played a "Clinton" card!

You never did get around to actually answering my question - are you running for office? I'll make it simpler. "Does a sovereign nation have the right to develop it's own defense policy?"

And stop trying to confuse me! "And we couldn't negotiate with him...And he was power mad...And he murdered and tortured thousands of Iraqis...And he was destabilizing to the region..."

You talkin' about Bush? His Daddy didn't have any trouble negotiating with Saddam - or selling him WMD, or his policy toward Kuwait until the morning of.

Stop picking your cherries and shake the whole damn tree!

by MedfordTim on 08/11/2007 04:47:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So, Ken.

How LONG, precisely, has Saddam been ueber-wealthy?

You can probably see where I'm going with this.

by jarett on 08/11/2007 05:45:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]

meaningful to the vast majority of Americans!

  • Paris Hilton et al
  • Brittney Spears sex tapes
  • American idol
    • Paula Abdul's droopy breasts!!!!
    • Is he gay?
    • Simon is an asshole...
  • Anything Bradgalinna does.
  • Latest diet
  • Racism on Grays Anatomy
  • Walmart moments on Larry King...

What does the right honorable gentleman say? So say we as one, so say we all. Hazzaa!

(PS: Bush would last about 2 seconds during the "ministers questions.") 

by MRFred on 08/12/2007 01:19:17 PM EST

(PS: Bush would last about 2 seconds during the "ministers questions.") 

Shrub would just give the ministers the ole

"Okay Put up your dukes he he he, that's an old boxing expression."

put up your dukes

Then he would have Rummy come in to explain how

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 08/12/2007 03:12:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: