Read this in the telegraph this morning.
Suitable punishment for the things this guy has done??
_______
Memo from Saddam: We can't afford to pay Galloway more
By David Blair in Baghdad
(Filed: 23/04/2003)
Saddam Hussein rejected a request from George Galloway for more money, saying that the Labour backbencher's "exceptional" demands were not affordable, according to an official document found by The Daily Telegraph in Baghdad.
George Galloway speaking in Baghdad during a conference on solidarity with Iraq last year
The letter from Saddam's most senior aide was sent in response to Mr Galloway's reported demand for additional funds. This was outlined in a memorandum from the Iraqi intelligence chief disclosed yesterday in The Daily Telegraph.
Mr Galloway denies receiving any money from the regime. He claims that any documents purporting to show this are forgeries planted by western intelligence agencies to try to discredit him.
The latest document purported to convey a personal decision from Saddam and was circulated to four of the most senior figures in the former regime, including Tariq Aziz, the deputy prime minister. It indicates that Mr Galloway's affairs were discussed at the highest level.
Its disclosure, if accurate, shows that there were limits to Mr Galloway's success in wresting commercial opportunities from Iraq. But it adds to the impression that he was working closely with the most senior apparatchiks of a regime that he repeatedly professed to oppose.
The letter, which was found in the files of the foreign ministry, was dated May 2, 2000, and marked "Confidential and Personal". It refers to the date and reference number of the intelligence chief's memo, which specifically asked for Saddam's decision on Mr Galloway's alleged requests.
The letter opens by saying that "Mr President, our leader, God bless him", was ordering a committee to look into the matter. The committee's members were the recipients of the letter and read like a who's who of the elite of the Saddam regime.
Taha Yassin Ramadan, the vice-president, Izzat Ibrahim, Saddam's deputy on the Ba'ath Party's Revolutionary Command Council, Ali Hassan al-Majid, a senior general who ordered gas attacks on Kurdish villages, and Mr Aziz were all included.
So was Mohammed Said al-Sahaf, then foreign minister, who was later nicknamed "Comical Ali" when he served as the ever-optimistic information minister.
But Saddam pre-empted any conclusions that the committee might have reached. Referring to Mr Galloway in the dictator's familiar idiom as the man "promoting the right path", the letter says: "The belief is that . . . even using western methods [he] needs exceptional support which we cannot afford and I do not think we can promise to do that if we consider it according to our policy. Please act and let us be informed."
The letter is signed by Gen Abid Hamid al-Khattab, of the president's secretariat. Gen al-Khattab ran Saddam's private office and was included in the handful of officials who had constant access to him.
He was widely viewed as one of themost powerful figures in Iraq. A copy of the letter was sent to the foreign minister, Mr Sahaf, hence its presence in the foreign ministry files. It was found in the same pale blue folder, stamped with the Iraqi eagle, as the intelligence chief's memorandum.
Saddam was rejecting two specific requests allegedly made by Mr Galloway, as recorded in the intelligence chief's memorandum. The first was for a greater share of the profits from oil exports.
The memorandum said that Mr Galloway was already receiving between 10 and 15 cents per barrel of three million barrels exported every six months: an annual sum of at least £375,000.
Mr Galloway's second reported request was for "exceptional commercial and contractual" opportunities with three ministries and the state electricity commission. These requests for more sources of income fell on deaf ears, but Saddam's decision not to allow them did not apply to Mr Galloway's existing deals.
Before Saddam issued his rejection, Mr Galloway sent his "work programme" for 2000 to Mr Aziz. Saddam's office had approved it and Mr Aziz passed the document to four cabinet ministers and the intelligence chief.
• George Galloway was in Baghdad in the weeks before Iraqi foreign ministry papers say he met one of Saddam Hussein's representatives and discussed money.
Mr Galloway arrived in Baghdad in November 1999 with a red London double- decker bus on a high-profile visit to deliver medical supplies for those suffering in Iraq under sanctions.
Among documents found in Iraq's foreign ministry this week was a memo from the country's secret service to Saddam's office outlining talks between the MP and an agent on Boxing Day 1999, during which Mr Galloway is alleged to have said he needed "continuous support from Iraq".
The MP has told this newspaper that the meeting did not take place but said he did spend one Christmas in Iraq, but could not be sure which one.
________________
Share This Page:
Galloway strikes again
I watched Galloway on last nights news prog, speaking to Saddam, he looked like one of those soft bastards who tried to mollify and appease Hitler during the late '30s. It's a pity he didn't stay in Baghdad to await the incoming USA postal service, "Your cheque is in the post", whhooomp.
You should talk to somebody who gives a f**k.
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Robiz/movie_star_wars_yoda.gif[/img]
El Presidente
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Robiz/movie_star_wars_yoda.gif[/img]
El Presidente
Putting it mildly I'm not a great fan of gorgeous George but the Evening Standard last night seemed to take the view that the expose was all a bit iffy and I can't help but agree.
At least the 'news' was a diversion from seeing maimed kids on the telly and from the fact that the US regime don't think that Blix is a suitable candidate to find the weapons of mass destruction so they're flying in their own people. The criticisms of Blix by the US regime (please note USARMY -"regime" doesn't equate to the good people of your country so perhaps you'll stay in your box for this one) that he was unable to come up with the goods look a bit unfair now that US troops are crawling all over the place and still can't find anything.
Perhaps Hamas have taken advantage of the chaos and picked the lot up as it seemed clear that Sadam was unwilling to share his sweets while he was in power.
But.....I digress from the real issue. Not wanting to pre-judge what Galloway was up to, trial by the media (a few ambitious and 'exclusive'-hungry journalists backed up by people perhaps with political axes to grind) isn't really cricket. I'd wait until a more independent tribunal reports until deciding what he has actually "done".
I'll probably need to say this again so I will. I don't know much about Galloway but I haven't liked what I have seen.
The issue for me isn't Galloway its the media dressing conjecture up as fact. It may well be fact but I'd suggest that they don't know that at this stage and neither do we.
At least the 'news' was a diversion from seeing maimed kids on the telly and from the fact that the US regime don't think that Blix is a suitable candidate to find the weapons of mass destruction so they're flying in their own people. The criticisms of Blix by the US regime (please note USARMY -"regime" doesn't equate to the good people of your country so perhaps you'll stay in your box for this one) that he was unable to come up with the goods look a bit unfair now that US troops are crawling all over the place and still can't find anything.
Perhaps Hamas have taken advantage of the chaos and picked the lot up as it seemed clear that Sadam was unwilling to share his sweets while he was in power.
But.....I digress from the real issue. Not wanting to pre-judge what Galloway was up to, trial by the media (a few ambitious and 'exclusive'-hungry journalists backed up by people perhaps with political axes to grind) isn't really cricket. I'd wait until a more independent tribunal reports until deciding what he has actually "done".
I'll probably need to say this again so I will. I don't know much about Galloway but I haven't liked what I have seen.
The issue for me isn't Galloway its the media dressing conjecture up as fact. It may well be fact but I'd suggest that they don't know that at this stage and neither do we.
I too am sceptical as it would be an incredibly foolish thing to do. However the allegations are quite strong and if the evidence does get into the right hands he could be in serious trouble.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2968549.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2965789.stm
Could this be treason? If so what is the punishment? Stretch his neck after a spell in the Tower?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2968549.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2965789.stm
Could this be treason? If so what is the punishment? Stretch his neck after a spell in the Tower?
Hi Ben,
I'm sure that if there is a case to prosecute then the DPP will get involved. I'm not sure in what sense the allegations are "strong" though. The BBC doesn't seem to come down on either side e.g. "claims to have found a memo purporting...." i.e. their news is that the Telegraph seems to be making a case. They're obviously aware of the Defamation Act.
The point made by the Standard is that only one document (a pretty innocuous one) was actually signed by Galloway. The 'facts' could be explained by some sort of scam using Galloway's name.
Whatever has happened, treason is treason and good old fashioned corruption is corruption. I can't see that there are any alleged acts of treason - which rightly is a very serious matter. Corruption wss standard practice in companies like Worlcom and Enron where thousands lost their pensions and future livelihoods. I personally think its a breach of trust and despicable wherever it happens but I don't think Galloway's is any worse or any better than Aitken, Hamilton, Mates (alledgedly in relation to Polly Peck) etc. etc.
Reminds me of a story. Lyndon Johnson was running for governor of some state in the US before he was president. His opponent was a pillar of the community but Lyndon wanted some dirt on him (loose women etc.). His aides said that he had done nothing like that. "you know that, I know that, but I just want to hear him deny it" says Lyndon.
No smoke without fire. Seems like the Telegraph has decided that Galloway isn't fit to represent the people. We may all agree but I think it's up to the people who elected him to be their spokesman - unaided by media dirty tricks. Having said that it's right that corruption (treason or whatever) should be brought to light. All I'm saying is that I don't think we should pre-judge on minimal facts and I do think the matter should be investigated further - and yes he should report to the bottom of the high jump if the allegations are substantiated
.
I'm sure that if there is a case to prosecute then the DPP will get involved. I'm not sure in what sense the allegations are "strong" though. The BBC doesn't seem to come down on either side e.g. "claims to have found a memo purporting...." i.e. their news is that the Telegraph seems to be making a case. They're obviously aware of the Defamation Act.
The point made by the Standard is that only one document (a pretty innocuous one) was actually signed by Galloway. The 'facts' could be explained by some sort of scam using Galloway's name.
Whatever has happened, treason is treason and good old fashioned corruption is corruption. I can't see that there are any alleged acts of treason - which rightly is a very serious matter. Corruption wss standard practice in companies like Worlcom and Enron where thousands lost their pensions and future livelihoods. I personally think its a breach of trust and despicable wherever it happens but I don't think Galloway's is any worse or any better than Aitken, Hamilton, Mates (alledgedly in relation to Polly Peck) etc. etc.
Reminds me of a story. Lyndon Johnson was running for governor of some state in the US before he was president. His opponent was a pillar of the community but Lyndon wanted some dirt on him (loose women etc.). His aides said that he had done nothing like that. "you know that, I know that, but I just want to hear him deny it" says Lyndon.
No smoke without fire. Seems like the Telegraph has decided that Galloway isn't fit to represent the people. We may all agree but I think it's up to the people who elected him to be their spokesman - unaided by media dirty tricks. Having said that it's right that corruption (treason or whatever) should be brought to light. All I'm saying is that I don't think we should pre-judge on minimal facts and I do think the matter should be investigated further - and yes he should report to the bottom of the high jump if the allegations are substantiated
.galloway
Was there ever an investigation into reports he used money raised for a girl with leukemia to fund his trips abroad?
WRT to his comments on british soldiers, its unclear what he actually said.
If he called on arab worlds to unite and kill british soldiers (as some reported)
then that is treachery imho.
But its very unclear what he said exactly
WRT to his comments on british soldiers, its unclear what he actually said.
If he called on arab worlds to unite and kill british soldiers (as some reported)
then that is treachery imho.
But its very unclear what he said exactly
Fair shout May. The money seems to have been raised by appealing to people about this poor girl suffering from leukaemia but the fund was always a political campaign fund and not a charity as admitted by Galloway last night. Cynical in the least 
I hope it doesn't appear that I'm sticking up for him May. I'd like to think that I'm sticking up for a few basic rights that people in this country should have (and didn't have in Iraq). I don't know too much about Galloway and don't feel drawn to him for some reason
so perhaps I should cork it.
He was interviewed from a nice place in Portugal though
I hope it doesn't appear that I'm sticking up for him May. I'd like to think that I'm sticking up for a few basic rights that people in this country should have (and didn't have in Iraq). I don't know too much about Galloway and don't feel drawn to him for some reason
so perhaps I should cork it.He was interviewed from a nice place in Portugal though
The BBC will never accuse anyone of anything unless it has been proven in court and are always impartial where actions could be libelous. That said, the Telagraph are not usually ones to go off half cocked even if it could be a scoop. Like you said there is no smoke without fire and there must be something up for them to go out to get Mr Galloway. Whatever the outcome, his already jaded reputation will be forever tarnished, to the point where he may not get a seat, as his was dissolved in the new boundary lines. I would really like to know the truth behind this one. I agree that he should climb the rungs of the ladder if it is proved but what would his actions constitute? Telling our troops to rebel against orders is one thing but calluding with an enemy dictator is another. I feel sorry for him either way as this mud will stick.
Don't think so Ben, the Beeb has faced a few defamation actions in the past and I think it's far from impartial. It definitely lets phoney Tony off a bit too easily. Generally agree with you though mate.The BBC will never accuse anyone of anything unless it has been proven in court and are always impartial where actions could be libelous.
-
exvmremf
- Guest
I'd probably agree with you but what we shouldn't do is try to limit free speech simply because we don't agree with what someone says. If there's a clear danger that what someone says is acted upon then I suppose that's incitement and should be dealt with. Free speech is a good thing and in a mature democracy I'd like to think we can take rantings with a pinch of salt as long as they're only that. If Galloway was responsible for a single death then he should stand by.
Are we talking hypothetically? As I say, I don't know much about Galloway and didn't really follow the news when the 'liberation' was on
(although I'll be keeping an eye on this one) - was he ranting about foreigners killing UK troops? What exactly did he say?
Are we talking hypothetically? As I say, I don't know much about Galloway and didn't really follow the news when the 'liberation' was on
(although I'll be keeping an eye on this one) - was he ranting about foreigners killing UK troops? What exactly did he say?[ What exactly did he say?[/quote]
All ive found for definete on his quotes regarding our soldiers is
he urged iraqis to unite and fight the invaders
said "the arab world should fight the british and americans "
he urged british soldiers to disobey @illegal orders@
he said that brit soldiers would be tried as @war criminals@
after the outrage in his own constituency he backtracked and said soldiers were lions led by donkeys etc
All ive found for definete on his quotes regarding our soldiers is
he urged iraqis to unite and fight the invaders
said "the arab world should fight the british and americans "
he urged british soldiers to disobey @illegal orders@
he said that brit soldiers would be tried as @war criminals@
after the outrage in his own constituency he backtracked and said soldiers were lions led by donkeys etc
Well our George is not the only one at it, just a few weeks there where a number of charities collecting for the young lad Ali how had lost both arms
as you must remember. Well after they had collected several hundred thousand pounds a piece the lad was taken to Kuwait who are going to do all the work for free. Now what is going happen to all the money that has been collected, well one of the charities stated that they would spend it on other children. That is well and good but charity commisioners state that the monet collect for a certain function should should be spent on that function. Now if George Galloway is going to be pulled over the coals for his fund for Maria then why not the rest of these charities.
as you must remember. Well after they had collected several hundred thousand pounds a piece the lad was taken to Kuwait who are going to do all the work for free. Now what is going happen to all the money that has been collected, well one of the charities stated that they would spend it on other children. That is well and good but charity commisioners state that the monet collect for a certain function should should be spent on that function. Now if George Galloway is going to be pulled over the coals for his fund for Maria then why not the rest of these charities.
