Green Mtn
location: Observing the Progressive madness with considerably less amusement.
listening to: Grandchildren, the best reason for saving the future.
registered: 2004.04.03
posts: 2617
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
...before the Senate, of two.
May 18, 2005Thusly, I Humiliated Norm Coleman
By GEORGE GALLOWAYSenator, 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.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 realise 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 Haliburton 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."
–--
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
G
Green Mtn
(view)
...before the Senate, of two.
May 18, 2005Thusly, I Humiliated Norm Coleman
By GEORGE GALLOWAYSenator, 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.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 realise 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 Haliburton 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."
–--
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
