Is this what they have on Galloway?

[TheGunslinger]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/20/AR2005052001385.html


What Mr. Galloway failed to do, however, was directly answer the charges made against him in the subcommittee's report, collected and compiled in wonkish, earnest American fashion by Senate staffers and officials working in Iraq, or discredit their work overall. It is true, as Mr. Galloway stated, that documents formerly used to allege his guilt have not held up in court. But the Senate staff did not rely on these or on an infamous Iraqi newspaper article that placed Mr. Galloway's name on a long list of oil allocation recipients. Their documentation comes, rather, from commercial invoices and other documents from the Iraqi oil ministry archives, as well as the testimony of current Iraqi oil company administrators and former regime officials. Much of it centers around the activity of Jordanian businessman Fawaz Zureikat, Mr. Galloway's representative in Baghdad. Mr. Zureikat's name appears in multiple documents as a recipient of oil. He is also recorded as a major donor to a charity run by Mr. Galloway. Mr. Galloway dismissed the idea that any of this might be relevant to his own case.



So, Zureikat is a donor to a Galloway charity? I guess that's why there's now an investigation into this charity.

[Carolab]

1. Galloway says the documents are forgeries.

He also says he didn't know at the time that the money came from oil kickbacks, but his charity did accept funding from Zureikat.

Did you watch his testimony? You can watch it on the BBC website.

[TheGunslinger]

2. Oh yeah....GREAT video

But, the documents he's referring to as forgeries are different from these documents.

[Carolab]

3. I think I know what you mean.

The invoices that were being discussed with Galloway's name in parentheses? They asked him if they were forgeries and he said they were "wrong" but he wouldn't say whether they were forgeries without seeing the originals? Or do you think it's something other?

[TheGunslinger]

9. I was referring to the documents mentioned in the WaPo article

Their documentation comes, rather, from commercial invoices and other documents from the Iraqi oil ministry archives, as well as the testimony of current Iraqi oil company administrators and former regime officials.

It seems the proper thing to check out his connections to Zureikat before we go saluting this guy without reserve. I mean, we slam DeLay for his connections to people like Abramoff. Who's to say this Galloway still isn't somehow connected.


I don't think he is. He seemed, to me, a person of integrity but, then again, I don't know for sure.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheGunslinger]

6. Give me a break

All we know of this guy, mostly, is the great smackdown he put on the Senate the other day.

Has this guy been vetted before all of the left marries itself to him.


all I'm saying is tread with caution.

[truthisfreedom]

8. nobody's getting married here. we're just trying to discover the truth.

just because i'm not with you doesn't mean i'm against you.

unless you deal in absolutes.

[TheGunslinger]

10. Then what was with the accusatory post of yours above?

[truthisfreedom]

11. i made no accusation. i'm asking for a filter.

be patient.

[TheGunslinger]

12. A filter? What are you talking about?

[truthisfreedom]

13. nothing personal.

[TheGunslinger]

14. Is this the way all newcomers are treated?

Someone posts something that...gasp...shines a critical light on a well-liked person by the left gets scrutinized?


Sounds like an m.o. from the right.

[truthisfreedom]

15. are you on crack? what makes you so quick to judge when i'm asking for

a little group help here?

could it be...

[TheGunslinger]

16. Group help on what? And "could it be" what?

Paranoid much?

[truthisfreedom]

17. only when someone boosting his posts at an astronomical rate just arrived

moments ago.

[TheGunslinger]

19. Excuse me for being a night owl

A buddy of mine recently started a blog. He said he was inspired by this place and I should check it out. So, I did, and I like what I see up here...at least until I start getting grief.

[truthisfreedom]

20. like i said

be patient. we're just "checking the facts, ma'am." 8^)

[TheGunslinger]

21. so be it

[Robin Hood]

35. So you don't align yourself with the left?

"the left gets scrutinized?"

[mhr]

42. How Do You Know That The The Information In The WaPo

Is truthful?

For all we know this information is a plant by the Coleman committee to fool people like yourself.

[funflower]

5. Welcome to DU, TheGunslinger!

Pleased to have ya' here!

:hi:

[TheGunslinger]

7. Thanks!

Much warmer reception there than others up here. ;)

[Carolab]

18. I think the invoices the WaPo article refers to are the same ones.

I think that is the paperwork that they were asking him about in the hearing. In his reply to Coleman he said that the documents were shown to be forgeries that the Christian Science Monitor and the Daily Telegraph had published. It seems Levin was asking him about some OTHER documents and whether they were real or not...and I think those are the invoices to which the article refers.

[twenty4blackbirds]

25. the document may be authentic and be false in its statement

If I listened correctly to that bit of the testimony, the document in question is that list that has his Iraqi contributor name on it, next to Galloway's name as the organisation, and the followed by "(French)" in paranthesis.

~aside: The Russian diplomat had "(Russian)" next to his name, but Galloway isn't from France, surely?~

If I listened and understood correctly, Galloway was presented with a photocopy of that list just before the hearing and then was asked to make a judgement as to whether the original (which he hadn't seen) was an authentic document.

And if my understanding is correct, Galloway was very explicit, maybe too much so, in his opinion that
1) he could not make a judgement call to verify the authenticity of an unseen original document based merely on a photocopy of a photocopy,
2) the information provided in the unverified document was false.

~aside: afaiaa copies of documents which need to be verified as a 'true and unaltered copy' for legal purposes by solicitors & such are usually sighted by legal eagles to check that the copy _is_ a 'true and unaltered' copy. Government departments, e.g. immigration, wouldn't accept an unverified document. The Committee seems to have fallen down there.~

I took it to mean that while the document may be authentic (that the original document does indeed have his name next to the Iraqi contributor) the information in the document is false (that Galloway is not linked with the Iraqi contributor personally).

e.g. this post states "human beings require no oxygen to keep living".
While this post is authentic in having the statement, the statement is clearly false - afaiaa all human beings require oxygen to keep living.

[funflower]

22. Doin' my best to be neighborly....

:toast:

[shraby]

23. I would think it would behoove the

congress to investigate the American companies that were involved in over 50% of the oil for food scandal. Shouldn't we be cleaning our own house first?

[Vladimir]

24. There has already been a through investigation into this charity

which found nothing - not surprisingly since there is nothing to find.

[TheGunslinger]

31. Ah. As Wayne said on Wayne's World: "I was not aware of that."

[Evergreen Emerald]

26. But the distraction serves its purpose

or the "smoke screen" as Galloway called it.

[Cha]

39. "Mother of all Smokesreens"..

as Galloway said.:)

[xchrom]

27. i'm gonna believe american sources right now?

hardly.

galloway may not be the perfect messenger{who is?} but his message and the delivery remain the most significant points.

[colonel odis]

28. documents from the iraqi oil ministry? it burned. remember?

how conveeeenient.

[Swamp Rat]

29. Welcome to DU!

Smokescreen... Let's investigate Norm Coleman and the entire rethuglican party.

Fucking homicidal alien lizards! :mad:

[bemildred]

30. Butt covering lies.

Mr. Galloway did indeed answer the charges, and he did indeed
discredit their work. The previous set of "incriminating" documents
were forgeries. This current set has the appearance of forgeries
too, and incompetent ones at that.

[demo dutch]

41. He brought some sort of dossier along as well which is supposed to

discredit their charges. It's irrelevant that Zureikat gave him money for the charity, besides that's already been investigated in the UK and was cleared. If the money went to help kids, it could be a little like "But I didn't inhale". But the charges were that Galloway supposedly profited personally but there is no proof, remember he said "Where is the money".

In the end though it's all small potatoes compared to what American companies are doing over there!!and that's why I thought his speech was brilliant!

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. You must be aware of the investigation already concluded

There has been an extensive investigation of the charity by Lord Goldsmith (the pro-war "attorney general" in England who, by the by, hates Galloway like poison), and no wrong-doing was found. The charity's income and disbursements were studied for its entire history, and the panel found no wrong-doing.

Are you pretending not to be aware of this previous investigation?

[TheGunslinger]

38. Not pretending. I *was* unaware.

I've only followed the news a bit and saw the amazing video of Galloway. I'm not aware of the investigation into the charity.

[Al-CIAda]

33. Undercover Mossad agents' in UN team- Galloway & Scott Ritter

Undercover Mossad agents' in UN team
Tuesday, November 3, 1998
MP George Galloway: Named four "Mossad agents" working in Iraq
A UK MP has said that four members of the United Nations weapons inspection team in Iraq are Israeli spies. Labour's George Galloway, who has campaigned against air strikes on Iraq, named four people he alleged were agents of Mossad, the Israeli secret service, working under false names and papers with the Unscom team. But Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said he had "no corroboration" of the claims, which he said emanated from Baghdad.
Mr Galloway also said a senior UN official had told him that Unscom head Richard Butler was "a congenital liar" - an allegation "utterly" rejected by Mr Cook.
The clash came in Commons exchanges after the Foreign Secretary made a statement on the deepening crisis over Iraq's withdrawal of co-operation with the UN weapons inspectors.
Unscom's former chief of inspectors, Scott Ritter, has alleged the organisation received substantial aid from Mossad. Mr Galloway demanded: "Isn't the problem the total bankruptcy of Unscom as a credible player in this whole affair?

Con't-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/207223.stm


====

Perhaps THIS is what they are after him for

[Michael_Bush]

34. HUGE difference ....

There are several issues at play and BOTH sides are fudging lines where it suits them.

They accused Galloway of taking money PERSONALLY which I think some of the documents are SUPPOSED to indicate although only by the thinnest of circumstantial evidence. As Galloway so eloquently stated, if they had REAL evidence it would be plastered on the wall.

Galloway would have taken money for his charity from ANYONE because that money went to save the lives of children. That is VASTLY different than taking money for your own political campaign.

While clearly an eloquent speaker some of Galloways impact was weaker because he missed some of the buttons that are so dear to Americas heart.

[Vickers]

36. So Ken Lay gave to Bush's reelection, so Bush is guilty of all the Enron

shit?

I can live with that.

I mean, that is the leap in logic they are asking us to do in Galloway's case.

[Al-CIAda]

37. Score! great point. Jr. rode on 'Kenny Boy's' plane and exchanged

love notes....

'Ken who?" ...but to extend this, how about HOLDING HANDS with Saudi butchers and BILLIONS in personal deals with the supposed FUNDERS of Al-CIAda?!

[demo dutch]

40. Exactly!!