MD George Galloway & the Senate

From: Ant McWatt (antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk)
Date: Thu May 19 2005 - 23:48:33 BST

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: DMB and Me (or, a Typology of the MD), Part I (B)"

    Platt stated May 19th 2005:

    >Hi Anthony,
    >
    >Thanks for the illuminating excerpt from Galloway's testimony to the
    >Senate inquiry into the Food for Oil scandal. You forgot to mention that
    >Galloway didn't give straight answers to the questions put to him, nor
    >that the Senate had documents indicating his involvement in that scandal.

    Platt,

    Thanks for your interest with George Galloway and his recent hearing at the
    Senate.

    To put you in the picture, there's been a systematic attempt by the British
    Establishment recently to discredit Galloway basically because he was an
    anti-war politician. First, the London Daily Telegraph conveniently "found"
    some documents in Baghdad “proving” that Galloway was “in the pay” of Saddam
    Hussein. Of course, when it was realised in December 2004 that these
    documents had a very dubious heritage, the Telegraph were ordered by a
    British Court to pay Galloway damages of £150,000 and his costs of £600,000.
      Moreover, because their case was so weak, the Judge didn’t even give the
    Telegraph leave to appeal.

    As far as the questions in the Senate were concerned Galloway just gave a
    full account of the issues behind the questions rather than a simple yes or
    no which would have been uninformative. And regarding the documents that
    the Senate have, if Fox News had actually allowed their viewers to hear
    Galloway, they would have heard him state the following:

    “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 [or] 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.”

    Ant McWatt comments:

    Not that I’m a great adherent of conspiracy theories but what the hell is
    happening when forged documents are appearing both in the United States and
    the UK concerning the various parties (such as anti-war politicians, the
    United Nations, the French government and Vatican) who were against the
    Iraqi invasion?

    Platt stated May 19th 2005:

    >Free speech doesn't require a megaphone be given to every crackpot who
    >wants to destroy what we fight to preserve and promote around the world.

    Well, that’s a bit of a harsh indictment on Norm Coleman. ;-) And, anyway,
    don’t you think people in a democracy should be allowed to make their own
    minds up about who is talking like a crackpot and who isn’t? What gives a
    big mouth reporter on Fox News the right to censor parts of an important
    Senate hearing? Hasn't it crossed your mind that Fox News were possibly
    trying to hide something? Wake up and smell the coffee!

    >Apparently Galloway is not in favor of establishing democracy over tyranny
    >in Iraq or anywhere else.

    I think he is. However, I think – like any reasonable person – he’s against
    illegal wars and the imposition of puppet governments such as the one
    presently installed in Iraq.

    >Good thing he wasn't in charge at the beginning of Word War II. Like
    >Chamberlain, he would have capitulated to Hitler in a Munich minute.

    Hitler was a real threat to world democracy. Though Hussein was a despot
    and a dictator he was no real threat to us in the West. Galloway was
    concerned primarily with the children in Iraq who were first starved to
    death by international sanctions and then killed by the US-UK invasion and
    occupation.

    >Just so you know the other side of the story -- for a fair and balanced
    >view. :-)

    Well, is there an alternative in the MOQ to the view that killing innocent
    children needlessly is immoral? I don’t think Struan Hellier would even
    have tried that on.

    Best wishes,

    Anthony.

    _________________________________________________________________
    Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends
    http://messenger.msn.co.uk

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 19 2005 - 23:52:58 BST