From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Wed May 25 2005 - 08:28:51 EDT
See http://counterpunch.org/tomchick05232005.html , "Galloway and the US Press" I believe Galloway was on p. 1 of USA Today and the London Financial Times. But I didn't study the coverage. Paul Z. ************************************************************************ RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Paul Zarembka, editor, Elsevier Science ********************* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka On Wed, 25 May 2005, Bill Cochrane wrote: > Further to the forward of Galloways address, what, if any has been the > domestic US coverage and response to this? I watched the video of some > of the address and if for no other reason than the brilliance and > passion of Galloways delivery it's well worth a look. > > > Bill Cochrane > Research Fellow > Population Studies Centre > Centre for Labour and Trade Union Studies > WFASS > University of Waikato > New Zealand > Ph 64 7 838 4023 > Cell 021 346300 > Fax 64 7 838 4654 > > > > ________________________________ > > From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Bullock > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 4:35 AM > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Subject: [OPE-L] Galloway visits Congress > > > Published on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 by the Times Online (UK) > Galloway vs. The US Senate: Transcript of Statement > George Galloway, Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, delivered this > statement to US Senators today who have accused him of corruption > > "Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader. and neither > has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, > bought one, sold one - and neither has anyone on my behalf. > "Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in > Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea > of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. > You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a > single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written > to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. > And you call that justice. > "Now I want to deal with the pages that relate to me in this dossier and > I want to point out areas where there are - let's be charitable and say > errors. Then I want to put this in the context where I believe it ought > to be. On the very first page of your document about me you assert that > I have had 'many meetings' with Saddam Hussein. This is false. > "I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in > August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be > described as "many meetings" with Saddam Hussein. > "As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number > of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld > met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those > guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering > and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and > persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons > inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings > with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defense made of > his. > "I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans > governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to > demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American > officials were going in and doing commerce. > "You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the > 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better > record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other > member of the British or American governments do. > "Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to > quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from > the source is true, that I am 'the owner of a company which has made > substantial profits from trading in Iraqi oil'. > "Senator, I do not own any companies, beyond a small company whose > entire purpose, whose sole purpose, is to receive the income from my > journalistic earnings from my employer, Associated Newspapers, in > London. I do not own a company that's been trading in Iraqi oil. And you > have no business to carry a quotation, utterly unsubstantiated and > false, implying otherwise. > "Now you have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names > from Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of > your puppet government in Baghdad. If you had any of the letters against > me that you had against Zhirinovsky, and even Pasqua, they would have > been up there in your slideshow for the members of your committee today. > > "You have my name on lists provided to you by the Duelfer inquiry, > provided to him by the convicted bank robber, and fraudster and conman > Ahmed Chalabi who many people to their credit in your country now > realize played a decisive role in leading your country into the disaster > in Iraq. > "There were 270 names on that list originally. That's somehow been > filleted down to the names you chose to deal with in this committee. > Some of the names on that committee included the former secretary to his > Holiness Pope John Paul II, the former head of the African National > Congress Presidential office and many others who had one defining > characteristic in common: they all stood against the policy of sanctions > and war which you vociferously prosecuted and which has led us to this > disaster. > "You quote Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Well, you have something on me, > I've never met Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Your sub-committee apparently > has. But I do know that he's your prisoner, I believe he's in Abu Ghraib > prison. I believe he is facing war crimes charges, punishable by death. > In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat > prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Airbase, in Guantanamo Bay, > including I may say, British citizens being held in those places. > "I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you > manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances. But you quote 13 > words from Dahar Yassein Ramadan whom I have never met. If he said what > he said, then he is wrong. > "And if you had any evidence that I had ever engaged in any actual oil > transaction, if you had any evidence that anybody ever gave me any > money, it would be before the public and before this committee today > because I agreed with your Mr Greenblatt [Mark Greenblatt, legal counsel > on the committee]. > "Your Mr Greenblatt was absolutely correct. What counts is not the names > on the paper, what counts is where's the money. Senator? Who paid me > hundreds of thousands of dollars of money? The answer to that is nobody. > And if you had anybody who ever paid me a penny, you would have produced > them today. > "Now you refer at length to a company names in these documents as Aredio > Petroleum. I say to you under oath here today: I have never heard of > this company, I have never met anyone from this company. This company > has never paid a penny to me and I'll tell you something else: I can > assure you that Aredio Petroleum has never paid a single penny to the > Mariam Appeal Campaign. Not a thin dime. I don't know who Aredio > Petroleum are, but I daresay if you were to ask them they would confirm > that they have never met me or ever paid me a penny. > "Whilst I'm on that subject, who is this senior former regime official > that you spoke to yesterday? Don't you think I have a right to know? > Don't you think the Committee and the public have a right to know who > this senior former regime official you were quoting against me > interviewed yesterday actually is? > "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, > 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. > "Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you > promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass > killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million > Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew > that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that > they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my > heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit > in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a > pack of lies. > "I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have > weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, > that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to > your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I > told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would > resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the > fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the > end of the beginning. > "Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and > you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; > 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; > 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies. > > If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, > if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as > some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the > anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we > are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are > trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the > theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth. > "Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 > months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 > billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at > Halliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's > money, but the money of the American taxpayer. > "Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were > shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who > knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American > military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting > it or weighing it. > "Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, > revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest > sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French > politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the > connivance of your own Government." > (c) 2005 Times Newspapers > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 26 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT