Tuesday, May 17, 2005

"Have A Look..." Galloway Speaks

Thanks Tom D. for this:

These remarks were directed at Senator Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota), chair of the Senate committee investigating the UN oil-for-food scandal. I don't know if Galloway is corrupt or not; I just want to know why it takes a man from Scotland to stand up to a Republican grandstander like Coleman, let alone read him the Riot Act.
-TD

Here is a video link.

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.
Published on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 by the Times Online (UK)

"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."

###

Saturday, May 14, 2005

Another Strong Man Gets A Free Pass

"The people of Uzbekistan want to see a more representative and democratic government. But that should come through peaceful means not through violence and that's what our message is," - Scott McClellan, White House spokesman.

So the message is spreading democracy through peaceful means, not say, invading a country and toppling the resident strong man. Not if that strong man happens to be in bed with the US. Islam Karimov, a hold over from the bad old Soviet days, allows the US to base planes in that country to support ongoing operations in neighboring Afghanistan. He is denounced by human rights groups for his repression and torture of his opponents. There is no free press in Uzbekistan. Dissent is not allowed.
And today we read of hundreds of protesters killed by Uzbeki troops. The sham of "spreading democracy." And the shame of supporting the killing of innocents. It's no surprise that Uzbekistan has oil reserves.

It's no wonder the rest of the world see's the Bush Administration as hypocritical and even dangerous. They do exactly what they want to do and damn the rest of the world. They say their goal is to spread democracy, yet they prop up repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Uzbekistan. What they want is a strong man who takes orders from Washington, the way Saddam Hussein used to back when he was fighting the Iranians.

Democracy in Iraq, if it ever truly takes hold, is not what the neo-cons in Washington are after. Picture this; a referrendum held throughout Iraq on whether to allow US troops to stay. Do you think the majority of Iraquis would vote to keep them? Now the neo-cons in Washington know the answer to this, but they count on the true believers in red state America, those who are still waiting for our troops to be welcomed with roses, and a compliant press, to perpetrate the myth that the insurgency is nothing more than foriegn Islamic extremist and a few Saddam loyalist.
The idea that there could be popular support among ordinary Iraqis for the insurgency is something you never read about.

I'm reminded of Richard Myers quotes last year before Congress: "There is no way to lose militarily in Iraq. There is also no way to win militarily in Iraq."

I would add there is also no way to avoid being seen as a hypocrite to the rest of the world, if you're the Bush administration.

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Awash In A Sea Of Corruption And Cash

The senate voted 100-0 yesterday to pass a supplemental $82 billion dollar spending bill. $76 Billion for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush praised the bi-partisan way the bill sailed through Congress. Now everyone can feel good about how we strongly support the troops. It's easy to see why such a measure passed so handily. I mean it's not like we're going to PAY for it. No, no - see, this is the feel-good way of supporting the troops. We'll just vote them some money. Shazam! No sacrifice (not for the wealthiest among us) Deficit? What deficit?

Oh, and that's not all. Here Halliburton, in addition to your no bid contracts, and your bilking us for gasoline and construction contracts - here's an additional 72 million dollars in bonuses for doing such a good job. Yeah, that's right, the Army announced yesterday Halliburton was getting a BONUS! Hey, why not? I mean, if you consider the $300 billion spent on the war so far, $72 mill is chump change.

Also in yesterday's bill, $592 million for a new embassy in Baghdad. And guess who's going to build that. Actually, I don't know if it's going to be Halliburton or not. But who else could it be? And why not? They're doing such a good job.

I don't even blame those guys at Halliburton. They're just the rat hitting the feeder button, it's our government providing the cheese.

Friday, May 06, 2005

Derby Days!


OK, so I'm not a big race fan (horses or otherwise), but I do enjoy a good beverage now and again. So in honor of the Kentucky Derby, which is tommorrow I am posting the recipe for the hallowed mint julep. I snatched it off the official Derby website, which is actually pretty cool.

Hunter S Thompson called the Derby "decadent and depraved" and after a few of these bad boys it's easy to see why. As far as the race itself goes, my money's on Afleet Alex. Only because his mother rejected him when he was born, (seriously) but he grew up to be big and strong and fast. (He won at Oaklawn in Hot Springs by eight lengths).

So drink up, and happy Derby Days.


Mint Julep

For nearly a century, the mint julep has been the traditional beverage of Churchill Downs and the Kentucky Derby. The Early Times Mint Julep Cocktail is a ready-to-serve beverage that has been the "The Official Mint Julep of the Kentucky Derby®" for over 16 years. Over 80,000 Early Times Mint Juleps are served over the two-day period of the Kentucky Oaks and Kentucky Derby, requiring 8,000 liters of Early Times Mint Julep Ready-to-Serve Cocktail, 2,200 pounds of freshly harvested mint, and 80 tons of shaved ice.

The Grade II Early Times Mint Julep Stakes on May 24 at Churchill Downs is sponsored by Early Times, the time-honored ingredient in mixing an authentic mint julep. If the Early Times Mint Julep Ready-to-Serve Cocktail is not available from your local retailer, you can make your own with this recipe:

Early Times Mint Julep

* 2 cups sugar
* 2 cups water
* Sprigs of fresh mint
* Crushed ice
* Early Times Kentucky Whisky
* Silver Julep Cups

Make a simple syrup by boiling sugar and water together for five minutes. Cool and place in a covered container with six or eight sprigs of fresh mint, then refrigerate overnight. Make one julep at a time by filling a julep cup with crushed ice, adding one tablespoon mint syrup and two ounces of Early Times Kentucky Whisky. Stir rapidly with a spoon to frost the outside of the cup. Garnish with a sprig of fresh mint.