Galloway Lied in His Testimony

Malevolent British political panderer George Galloway may be facing legal trouble over his appearance before a Congressional committee: Galloway lied about Iraqi oil payments, says Congress report.

"George Galloway, the British MP, was last night accused of lying by a US Congressional committee when he testified earlier this year that he had not received any United Nation food-for-oil allocations from the deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

In a report issued here, Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman and his colleagues on the Senate Subcommittee for Investigations claim to have evidence showing that Mr Galloway’s political organization and his wife received vouchers worth almost $600,000 (?338,000) from the then Iraqi government.

“We have what we call the smoking gun,” said Mr. Coleman, who will send the report to the US Department of Justice and the British authorities. The MP could face charges of perjury, making false statements and obstructing a Congressional investigation. Each charge carries a possible jail term of five years and a fine of $250,000."

Galloway has made an entire public career of ostentatiously sniffing the throne of tyrants and terrorists. A more cretinous, disgusting, shameless, and personally corrupt apologist for the anti-Western radical fringe would be difficult to conceive of.

(I know, another prepositional for Mr. Merton)...

Alleged Boon Mee, Alleged. Lets actually SEE the smoking gun, rather than hearing about it before we post things like "Galloway lied in his testimony", shall we?

Not surprising - he lies in the UK, so what makes you think he wouldnt lie elsewhere?

Well, Galloway cleaned Coleman’s clock at the hearing, I remember listening to it and thinking to myself " this SOB is good..." Then I heard Norm in an interview saying that the purpose of the hearing wasn't to argue the charges, only to get Georgous George on record. Apparently, George got himself on record enough to get at least accused of perjury.

We may indict him, and even try him, in absentia, but we will never see him pay that fine, or serve any time.

What I want to know is why is the above smillie called "yohan" ?

I've asked the question.

What I want to know is why is the above smillie called "yohan" ?

I've asked the question.

Why?...is Yohan a Galloway fan?

You haven't answered Post #5 are you trying to divert the question ?

You haven't answered Post #5 are you trying to divert the question ?

Are you being intentionally obtuse or what has that smilie got to do with the subject of this thread?

What I want to know is why is the above smillie called "yohan" ?

I've asked the question.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To answer your question the smiley was named in honour of a certain banned member. Now back on topic - Galloway is a blow hard - his credibility is naught.

What I want to know is why is the above smillie called "yohan" ?

I've asked the question.

To answer your question the smiley was named in honour of a certain banned member. Now back on topic - Galloway is a blow hard - his credibility is naught.

We sure messed up a bunch of corrupt people and institutions by going into Iraq...

You have broken the terms of usage of the Independent's website in the manner of reprinting their article. Unless you've gotten their permission, this topic should come down. Sorry.

Use of Content

The Website and the Content may only be used for your personal, non-commercial use.

For this purpose alone you may retrieve and display the Content on a computer screen. You may also print out, but not photocopy, one copy of individual files on paper and store files in electronic form on disc, but not on any server or any other storage device connected to a network where the pages could be accessed by other users.

Except as set out above, you agree not to download, copy, reproduce, modify, store, archive, show in public, redistribute or commercially exploit in any way any part of the Content without the prior written permission of ID. You agree not to use the Content or the Website for any illegal or improper purpose, nor for any purpose which might infringe the rights of others, or which might harass or cause inconvenience of distress to any person.

You also agree to abide by all copyright notices and restrictions attached to the Content and not to remove or alter any such notice or restriction or alter the Content in any way.

Licence to reproduce Content

If you wish to re-publish, re-distribute or exploit the Content in any way you should address a request for permission to Independent Syndication at e-mail: [email protected] telephone: +44 (0)20 7005 2123 (text) telephone: +44 (0)20 7005 2777 (pictures)

ID cannot guarantee that any such permission would be forthcoming or on what terms.

Links from other sites

Third parties are permitted to link to stories within ID websites, using the URL and quoting the headline and the source website. Brief extracts from a story are permitted provided they are not substantive. Otherwise our material must not be reproduced on a third party site without express authorisation from us. Requests for more extensive material should be made in writing to The Legal Department, Independent House, 191 Marsh Wall, London, E14 9RS, England.

A third party must ensure that nothing on its own web site suggests or could be understood to imply that any part of the website is part of its own web site unless the third party has obtained the prior written approval of ID.

ID reserves the right to withdraw any permission without explanation or notice if in its sole judgement use of such links is excessive or inappropriate. ID also reserves the right to change the location and nature of files within the website without explanation or notice; it is the responsibility of the third party to check and update links as necessary.

You have broken the terms of usage of the Independent's website in the manner of reprinting their article. Unless you've gotten their permission, this topic should come down. Sorry.

Use of Content

The Website and the Content may only be used for your personal, non-commercial use.

For this purpose alone you may retrieve and display the Content on a computer screen. You may also print out, but not photocopy, one copy of individual files on paper and store files in electronic form on disc, but not on any server or any other storage device connected to a network where the pages could be accessed by other users.

Except as set out above, you agree not to download, copy, reproduce, modify, store, archive, show in public, redistribute or commercially exploit in any way any part of the Content without the prior written permission of ID. You agree not to use the Content or the Website for any illegal or improper purpose, nor for any purpose which might infringe the rights of others, or which might harass or cause inconvenience of distress to any person.

You also agree to abide by all copyright notices and restrictions attached to the Content and not to remove or alter any such notice or restriction or alter the Content in any way.

Licence to reproduce Content

If you wish to re-publish, re-distribute or exploit the Content in any way you should address a request for permission to Independent Syndication at e-mail: [email protected] telephone: +44 (0)20 7005 2123 (text) telephone: +44 (0)20 7005 2777 (pictures)

ID cannot guarantee that any such permission would be forthcoming or on what terms.

Links from other sites

Third parties are permitted to link to stories within ID websites, using the URL and quoting the headline and the source website. Brief extracts from a story are permitted provided they are not substantive. Otherwise our material must not be reproduced on a third party site without express authorisation from us. Requests for more extensive material should be made in writing to The Legal Department, Independent House, 191 Marsh Wall, London, E14 9RS, England.

A third party must ensure that nothing on its own web site suggests or could be understood to imply that any part of the website is part of its own web site unless the third party has obtained the prior written approval of ID.

ID reserves the right to withdraw any permission without explanation or notice if in its sole judgement use of such links is excessive or inappropriate. ID also reserves the right to change the location and nature of files within the website without explanation or notice; it is the responsibility of the third party to check and update links as necessary.

Gimme a break...

You a Galloway apologist?

brief extracts from a story are permitted provided they are not substantive

BM's ok - satisfied requirements.

Alleged Boon Mee, Alleged. Lets actually SEE the smoking gun, rather than hearing about it before we post things like "Galloway lied in his testimony", shall we?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alleged or not with the combined resources of the CIA,FBI,Mi5,Mossad,Tossad and all the other dodgy jim will fix it organisations lining up against him ...what chance will he have?.I wouldnt however under estimate the survival instints of an old street fighter like G.George (politically not physically)and although he might not be able to beat "em you gotta give him cred for his stance.

Like most expats I got the opportunity of a couple of years work in the 70s with a good old boy US company outa Houston,Texas and did a stint in sunny Basra....as did many thousands of others......almost as good as Patti....hot nights and cold beer...

Big Saddam was for most of the time during his "dictatorship" years the blue eyed boy of the US-UK-German-French....and most other god forsaken drowning economys and did we appreciate him...YOU bet..plus he had a neat little bargee against the wee devils across the old Shat al Arab .....known by another name.... and had to buy his toy guns from ...whom ...nice lttle earner

Havnt spoken to either George or Saddam (only met him once ..honest Guv)in over 25 years but between the 2 of them .......well lets see.

Read somewhere recently that one of the main very large Building Contracts for the new US Army compounds in Eye Rak was awarded to the Bin Laden (Bodgit & Scarper) Construction Company. ..good to know your bedfellows.

What I want to know is why is the above smillie called "yohan" ?

I've asked the question.

To answer your question the smiley was named in honour of a certain banned member. Now back on topic - Galloway is a blow hard - his credibility is naught.

He was in good company when he testified before the American congress.

I agree its not as substantive as the daily cutting and pasting of the entire PCN website to here, (thus cutting their advertisers off at the knees).

Anyway it doesn't matter, Boon Mee does exactly what he likes on Thai Visa.

I agree its not as substantive as the daily cutting and pasting of the entire PCN website to here, (thus cutting their advertisers off at the knees).

Anyway it doesn't matter, Boon Mee does exactly what he likes on Thai Visa.

All the news that's fit to print.

Perhaps the illumination of past misdeeds on the part of our 5th column are not to your liking, eh?

Britain went to war on the basis of there being WMD.

There weren't any.

End of debate. Galloway was right.

I agree its not as substantive as the daily cutting and pasting of the entire PCN website to here, (thus cutting their advertisers off at the knees).

Anyway it doesn't matter, Boon Mee does exactly what he likes on Thai Visa.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Moog don't sulk its not your style.

Britain went to war on the basis of there being WMD.

There weren't any.

End of debate. Galloway was right.

Your right Iraq's WMDs are in Syria now!!!

Britain went to war on the basis of there being WMD.

There weren't any.

End of debate. Galloway was right.

We're talking about taking 'Oil For Food' money here - not talking about the War...

'Oil For Food'

Been through the UK Courts already.

Galloway won $275,000 from the Daily Telegraph who made similar allegations.

This guy Coleman had better be very footsure

What I want to know is why is the above smillie called "yohan" ?

I've asked the question.

To answer your question the smiley was named in honour of a certain banned member. Now back on topic - Galloway is a blow hard - his credibility is naught.

He was in good company when he testified before the American congress.

You got anything constructive to offer to the discussion or are you just defending Galloway as a fellow 'sweaty-sock'?

'Oil For Food'

Been through the UK Courts already.

Galloway won $275,000 from the Daily Telegraph who made similar allegations.

This guy Coleman had better be very footsure

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Somehow I dont think the "coleman" lad is worried!!!

'Oil For Food'

Been through the UK Courts already.

Galloway won $275,000 from the Daily Telegraph who made similar allegations.

This guy Coleman had better be very footsure

Somehow I dont think the "coleman" lad is worried!!!

That's right Brit, the Fat Lady has certainly not issued forth her last yet!

With Norm Coleman and Bolten at the UN, the wheels are going to come off Kofi Annon's & Galloway's moped real soon!

Don't get me wrong. If he's guilty, or his wife has pocketed the loot, then he deserves to be nailed. If his denials were just Clintonesque semantics, then I don't like that at all.

Is this guy Coleman a safe pair of hands? Every American I ever seemed to come across in Wall Street had an infinite capacity for cock-ups.

What I want to know is why is the above smillie called "yohan" ?

I've asked the question.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To answer your question the smiley was named in honour of a certain banned member. Now back on topic - Galloway is a blow hard - his credibility is naught.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He was in good company when he testified before the American congress.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You would have thought that they are all angels.

Don't get me wrong. If he's guilty, or his wife has pocketed the loot, then he deserves to be nailed. If his denials were just Clintonesque semantics, then I don't like that at all.

Is this guy Coleman a safe pair of hands? Every American I ever seemed to come across in Wall Street had an infinite capacity for cock-ups.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dunno I'd dare say Coleman wouldn't be smiling like a cheshire cat - if he didnt have smth we didnt know about.

Coleman has enjoyed an excellent reputation as Senator from Minnesota - a state where corruption is a dirty word. He is a straight-shooter.

At any rate, the report claims that between 1999 and 2003 Mr. Galloway personally solicited and was granted vouchers for 23 million barrels of oil, at below the market price. These vouchers could then be resold at a profit. It also alleges that money was channeled to Amineh Abu-Zayyad, the MP's wife, and to the Mariam Appeal, an organization set up by Mr. Galloway to help a young Iraqi girl with leukemia.

Lining your pockets with funds set up for a dying child?

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 Defence 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.

Seems like he cleared his name once already.

I'm not fond of George Galloway, I doubt many people are. However he did speak the truth. Campaigns against people like him are just smokescreens to divert opinion away from the Iraq fiasco.

Well he's saying "Come and get me" - British MP Galloway challenges US Congress

Speaking to BBC radio on Tuesday, Galloway said: "I did not lie under oath in front of the Senate committee."

Galloway added: "I'm still willing to go to the United States and still willing to face any charge of perjury in front of that Senate committee.

"I'm demanding that they charge me with contempt and with perjury, I'm demanding it.

"If a Senate committee can go on the international airwaves without putting this to you, without sending me an advance (copy) and accuse me of lying under oath in front of a Senate committee, then I demand they charge me with perjury -- and I'll be on the next plane to face it."

Can't say fairer than that. If the Senate committee have evidence they should charge him.

Put up or shut up.