From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Fri May 20 2005 - 09:39:25 BST
:-)
On 5/20/05, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:> 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 a!
re deali
ng 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> start
ed 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 the!
se forge
d> 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 innocen!
t> child
ren 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> >
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 : Fri May 20 2005 - 09:43:59 BST