Galloway has been one of Blairs harshest critics and one of Saddam's most ardent supporters. The implications of this disclosure not only could uncover more corruption in UK and US politics but further highlights the U.N.'s gross incompetence and egregious idiocy when it comes to their treatment of the Oil For Food program. The U.N. obviously suffers from amentia. Galloway was in Saddam's pay, say secret Iraqi documents By David Blair in Baghdad (Filed: 22/04/2003) Telegraph.co.uk Cnn.com George Galloway, the Labour backbencher, received money from Saddam Hussein's regime, taking a slice of oil earnings worth at least £375,000 a year, according to Iraqi intelligence documents found by The Daily Telegraph in Baghdad. A confidential memorandum sent to Saddam by his spy chief said that Mr Galloway asked an agent of the Mukhabarat secret service for a greater cut of Iraq's exports under the oil for food programme. George Galloway: 'I have never in my life seen a barrel of oil, let alone owned, bought or sold one' He also said that Mr Galloway was profiting from food contracts and sought "exceptional" business deals. Mr Galloway has always denied receiving any financial assistance from Baghdad. Asked to explain the document, he said yesterday: "Maybe it is the product of the same forgers who forged so many other things in this whole Iraq picture. Maybe The Daily Telegraph forged it. Who knows?" When the letter from the head of the Iraqi intelligence service was read to him, he said: "The truth is I have never met, to the best of my knowledge, any member of Iraqi intelligence. I have never in my life seen a barrel of oil, let alone owned, bought or sold one." In the papers, which were found in the looted foreign ministry, Iraqi intelligence continually stresses the need for secrecy about Mr Galloway's alleged business links with the regime. One memo says that payments to him must be made under "commercial cover". For more than a decade, Mr Galloway, MP for Glasgow Kelvin, has been the leading critic of Anglo-American policy towards Iraq, campaigning against sanctions and the war that toppled Saddam. He led the Mariam Appeal, named after an Iraqi child he flew to Britain for leukaemia treatment. The campaign was the supposed beneficiary of his fund-raising. But the papers say that, behind the scenes, Mr Galloway was conducting a relationship with Iraqi intelligence. Among documents found in the foreign ministry was a memorandum from the chief of the Mukhabarat to Saddam's office on Jan 3, 2000, marked "Confidential and Personal". It purported to outline talks between Mr Galloway and an Iraqi spy. During the meeting on Boxing Day 1999, Mr Galloway detailed his campaign plans for the year ahead. The spy chief wrote that Mr Galloway told the Mukhabarat agent: "He [Galloway] needs continuous financial support from Iraq. He obtained through Mr Tariq Aziz [deputy prime minister] three million barrels of oil every six months, according to the oil for food programme. His share would be only between 10 and 15 cents per barrel." Iraq's oil sales, administered by the United Nations, were intended to pay for only essential humanitarian supplies. If the memo was accurate, Mr Galloway's share would have amounted to about £375,000 per year. The documents say that Mr Galloway entered into partnership with a named Iraqi oil broker to sell the oil on the international market. The memorandum continues: "He [Galloway] also obtained a limited number of food contracts with the ministry of trade. The percentage of its profits does not go above one per cent." The Iraqi spy chief, whose illegible signature appears at the bottom of the memorandum, says that Mr Galloway asked for more money. "He suggested to us the following: first, increase his share of oil; second, grant him exceptional commercial and contractual facilities." The spy chief, who is not named, recommends acceptance of the proposals. Mr Galloway's intermediary in Iraq was Fawaz Zureikat, a Jordanian. In a letter found in one foreign ministry file, Mr Galloway wrote: "This is to certify that Mr Fawaz A Zureikat is my representative in Baghdad on all matters concerning my work with the Mariam Appeal or the Emergency Committee in Iraq." The intelligence chief's memorandum describes a meeting with Mr Zureikat in which he said that Mr Galloway's campaigning on behalf of Iraq was putting "his future as a British MP in a circle surrounded by many question marks and doubts". Mr Zureikat is then quoted as saying: "His projects and future plans for the benefit of the country need financial support to become a motive for him to do more work and, because of the sensitivity of getting money directly from Iraq, it is necessary to grant him oil contracts and special and exceptional commercial opportunities to provide him with an income under commercial cover, without being connected to him directly." Mr Zureikat is said to have emphasised that the "name of Mr Galloway or his wife should not be mentioned".
Its all a conspiracy. And you must be lying. And this must all be right-wing propaganda. That's what you're gonna hear, at any rate.
Wow!! Labour will take a big hit for this. Maybe this is the ammunition the Tories need to make another run. I wonder if the Iraqis got to any of our people? Prime candidates- Scott Ritter Patty Murray MacBeth aka Zoolander
Who is Galloway? An elected official or some businessman? Israel, China, and everyone else has lobbyists in the US so how's this any different? Iraq has spent their food money on much worse than lobbying. I haven't gotten my Iraqi spy check yet, damn.
You know, amid all the rather serious reasons I feel a little unsure about the safety of the world, there are a few consistencies which help give me a small sense of the unchanging: 1) Spring is here and the weather is getting warmer. 2) The Cubs will not win the World Series. 3) johnheath makes some reference to my hating America/loving Sadaam/being on Hussein's payroll as well as citing his oddball opinions as facts, insulting people who disagree with him, and generally behaving like the twit he is. 4) .........and about a week or two from now treeman will claim that this kind of thing never happens save in the imaginations of what he sees as the 'liberals' on board. Anyone wanna bookmark this particular little gem of jh's intellectual limitations made manifest, just for the next denial?
He is an elected official. <a HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2966199.stm">Profile of George Galloway</a> <i>Controversial Labour MP George Galloway rose to Parliament from humble beginnings as a general labourer in the parks of Dundee. He went on to become a production worker for Michelin Tyres, becoming an active trade unionist and rising to be a labour organiser in the late 1970s. No stranger to controversy from the early days of his career, Mr Galloway flew the Palestinian flag from Dundee's council offices when he was a local representative there. By 1983 he had secured the position of general secretary of War on Want - a third world charity - and just four years later he defeated the then SDP member for Glasgow Hillhead, Roy Jenkins to become a Labour MP. The 48-year-old, whose second wife is a Palestinian scientist who works at Glasgow University, has remained a Labour MP in Glasgow ever since. In Parliament his opposition to the first Gulf War, his support for Palestinian causes and his opposition to Iraq sanctions raised his profile. Gorgeous? But it was his decision to visit Iraq on several occasions and hold talks with key figures in Saddam Hussein's regime - including the dictator himself - that proved most contentious. Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability George Galloway Dubbed the 'member for Baghdad Central' by some fellow MPs the generally sun-tanned politician has also been nicknamed 'Gorgeous George'. In 1994 he was shown on television telling Saddam: "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability." After a more recent trip he said that he had been offered Quality Street chocolates by the dictator. His campaign to raise money for a young Iraqi girl, Mariam Hamza, to fly her to the UK for treatment for leukaemia won him a rather better press than some of his other activities. Throughout his campaigns he has stressed that his concern is for the welfare of the Iraqi people. He has continued to hit the headlines on a regular basis in recent months, having a very public spat with the then Foreign Office minister Ben Bradshaw who accused Mr Galloway of being "not just an apologist but a mouthpiece for the Iraq regime over many years". Wolves Mr Galloway said Mr Bradshaw was lying and the minister later apologised for his comments. During the war, in an interview with Abu Dhabi television, Mr Galloway said Tony Blair and George Bush were "wolves" for the "crime" of military action against Iraq. He also questioned why Arab countries persisted in selling oil to coalition countries when Iraq was being attacked. Although Mr Galloway's anti-war views were in line with many in the Labour Party, his long-standing closeness to the Iraq regime meant that he has been widely seen as a maverick rather than as a spokesman for the peace movement. His comments over the UK prime minister's role in the war are being "looked at" by Labour's general secretary - a process which could lead to moves to expel him from the party or from the parliamentary Labour party. One thing is for certain - as shown by his robust response to the Daily Telegraph's claims he received money from Saddam Hussein's regime - if they do decide to kick him out of the party, George Galloway is unlikely to go quietly. </i>
Galloway, the man accused, may be suing for libel. I don't know if he's guilty or not. Here's a story on his denial for anyone who cares to read something on both sides. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2971829.stm
I thought we've already established that I doubt your motives for reasons other than believing that you're on Saddam's payroll? That your opposition doesn't mean support for Saddam, just opposition to American power? Besides, I didn't say it...
You didn't just claim that you didn't say it, but that no one said it. And my other motives are...? Something about being a dual citizen? Which makes me prone to supporting Iraq how, exactly?
I think your bias is that you oppose the war, thus you will agree with things that are in opposition to the war.
Wait...let me get this. My position against the war is dismissed because of my bias.......and my bias is that I'm against the war!?!? Wow! This is priceless. I assumed that it had to be something pre-existing, like being anti-US ( Not) anti Bush ( Not) anti-Republican( Not) anti-war ( Not) etc...but now it's all clear. I am against the war because I am against the war. Why didn't I ever think of that? One thing, all sarcasm aside, Mr. C, that I do appreciate is this: As illogical as it is, you are the 1st person to directly try and address the source of my bias I have repeatedly asked clarification about, citing my previous lack of same regarding any of the relevant issues, and I at least appreciate the lack of ducking it that has been evident elsewhere.
hehehehehhehe British politicians taking bribes from Saddam. That's a criminal act possibly if this story is correct. Depends on the level of involvement. Bush family members taking money from the bin laden family. (Think Arbusto, think Salim Bin Laden). What's this world coming to?
Actually, your position on the war is not dismissed. It is duly noted. But often your opinions on the war are dismissed because people know you are against the war, thus you are susceptible to looking for evidence against the war. I don't think people should accuse you of crude biases like your citizenship or your party affiliation. That's missing the point. We are all biased once we have an opinion. Look at it this way. The only people in the media who are considered unbiased are people like Ted Koppel and Tim Russert. Why? Because they do not offer their own opinions. Ever.
I actually respect what you are saying...However I do have some objections 1) My position has been repeatedly dismissed. Facts I have stated have been dismissed. The reasoning I used to come to the conclusion has been dismissed. News reports I have cited ( both of them) have been dismissed. And all because I have some presumed 'bias'..This despite, as noted, I have no pre-existing bias either way on any of the issues which would lend themselves to making a prejudiced decision. I am both an American and a non-American. I am neither Republican nor anti-Republican. I was not anti-Bush before this, and in fact prefered him to Gore. I am not automatically anti-war, and have supported wars in the past...including the original Gulf War...etc. And yet, when I would point out reasons why I was against the war, (note: Not facts I had ferreted out to support my cause, as A) I don't do that, and B) I can't do that if I try, not good with computers/internet, etc.) but thought out reasons, they were dismissed as reflecting my ( pick one: anti-American, anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-Republicans..I have heard them all) bias. And when I would point out the innacuracies of those claims, I would hear nothing else, except the next time I stated my position in another thread, the same thing would happen... 2)I am against the war BECAUSE of the evidence I have found, not the other way around. To assume your statement, there would have to be some reason why i was against it in the 1st place to set up my looking for evidence against it, which there wasn't. 3) I am not a newsperson, and as such have no need to restrain myself from arriving at conclusions and just reporting the facts. Newspeaople have a duty to not form conclusions...others have a duty to form them, and to try and keep prejudices out of the equation. I have no prejudices relevent to the war prior to it's occurence, and as such am entitled to my conclusions without being accused of bias. Also,the my two experiences with reporting the facts objectively are not such that I see doing so as rewarding in here. 4) I think that being called a Sadaam lover, America hater, on the payroll of Hussein, a trator, having had death wishes thrown at me, being told I enjoyed civilian causualties, or lost perspective on them to further my argument, etc. is a little beyond what one should endure for merely, as you say, being against the war and so finding evidence to support that stance. i don't agree that I do that, but I also in no way could see how people thinking I am doing that would justify the above...and that has been my experience, so I don't think that the dismissal of my stance has been as open minded and reasonable as you seem to think.
MacBeth: I do not think you're a Saddam supporter - I have never thought that. I don't think that anyone here is. I do think that you are among those who are displeased with American preeminence; you despise that we are so powerful. This does not mean that I think that you hate America; it is more a reflection on how you believe that the world should operate. You want the UN to have more power, and individual nations - the US included - to relinquish at least some of their sovereignty. You appear to want a community of equal nations running things by committee - sounds suspiciously like communism, but I do not think that you are one, because I do think that you desire democratic rule. (There is, however, absolutely nothing democratic about the UN.)That is IMHO a nice pipe dream that looks great on paper but is completely unrealistic in practice. It completely ignores human nature and current (and projected) balance of power realities. If I am off here - if I am wrong that this is what you want, a less powerful and more humble US that is subservient to the UN - then I apologize. That is simply what I have gathered from your arguments in the past. So no, I don't think that you're a Saddam-lover. I don't think that you hate America. I do think that if you had it in your power, though, you would take this country down a notch or two. Personally, I like living in an unrivaled superpower.
I found this quote facinating and, for me at least, amusing. If you left out the mention of the UN, you could be describing the Founding Fathers conception of the future United States... the states being the community of equal nations relinquishing at least some of their sovereignty and running things by committee... uh, the Congress. And we have the executive branch, which fulfills the tendency in human nature to have at least some sort of leader or figurehead, regardless of who really runs things behind the scenes. Sorry, the thought just popped into my head. The UN doesn't have a strong executive, of course, and I suspect we wouldn't want it to, or we would have written it into the charter. We DID write the charter, after all. The Security Council was a sop at executive authority, but it's proven to be a relatively powerless one, prone to indecision... not a strong executive quality. Of course, the executive branch of the our government here in the States has grow far more powerful than the Founding Fathers intended. Things often have unintended consequences. Sorry for the interruption.
Find a way to make the UN a democratic body, Deckard, and I'll consider it as an alternative to national sovereignty. It is much easier to give up your sovereignty when you elect to do so. Otherwise it is simply being taken from you. You are somewhat correct; what the Founding Fathers envisioned does bear some superficial similarities to this (communist-style) vision of governing. They opposed a strong executive, and they did intend the nation to be governed by a committee (Congress). They did, however, build in a system of elective rule that serves to check politicians and the power they wield, because they saw that without such a system human nature would hand you a string of despots - as the communist attempt did last century. One other thing: a world government, unless it was popular and democratic, would essentially be a global empire, and as such would be subject to the same weakness that have plagued past empires and led to their demise. The US is an empire, to be sure, but there are aspects of our empire that are different from past molds that a global empire would be unable to avoid. It would seem that the US strikes just the right balance between power, commitment, and reach; I doubt that a world government would be able to do so. Interesting topic.
I didn't duck; I answered. I doubted the "validity" of self-reporting. You offered way less <b>proof</b> than the Bush Administration did in order to re-engage the Gulf War effort. BTW, I'm still waiting ... a month later.... for some decidedldy pro-American posts of yours to surface from their burial at the bottom of some ocean somewhere. You claim not to be anti-USA, anti-Bush, anti-Republican et al, but I've never seen evidence-- only heard the claims. Kind of like Bigfoot. Ooh, bad example: I think Bigfoot really exists.
