Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Politicians - Some get caught
You might remember George Galloway.
The media gave him favorable coverage during his U.S. visits.
Apparently, the truth occasionally DOES come out in the end...
The media gave him favorable coverage during his U.S. visits.
Apparently, the truth occasionally DOES come out in the end...
Christopher Hitchens writes at Slate.com:
"This raises two quite serious questions. The first is the extent to which the Iraqi Baath Party was able to purchase direct influence among Western politicians: George Galloway has been a hysterically extremist political thug for a long time, but others more supposedly 'respectable,' including some important Russian and French politicians and diplomats, may have been sweetened and suborned in the same way. The second has to do with a purely moral issue. The 'il for Food' program was the means by which the most vulnerable people in Iraq—the children, the sick, and the aged—were supposed to be protected from the effect of sanctions aimed at the regime. To have profited from its abuse or its diversion is therefore somewhat worse than to have accepted a straight-out bribe or inducement from Saddam Hussein. It is to have stolen directly from the neediest and the weakest, in order to finance a propaganda campaign that in turn blamed the West for the avoidable sufferings of Iraqis between 1991 and 2003."
Comments:
<< Home
Since the report into George Galloway's behaviour, he has inevitably issued a blizzard of press and media statements giving his side of the story. His opening line is usually the same
Once more and yet again I have been cleared of taking a single penny or in any way personally benefiting from the former Iraqi regime through the Oil for Food programme or any other means.
What the report actually said is that it found “no evidence” that Galloway had benefited personally.
Perhaps that could be because they haven’t looked at Galloway's bank account?
In his evidence to the committee Galloway confirmed the following:
Q134 Mr Curry: You only had a joint account?
Mr Galloway: Yes, we only had a joint account. I only had a joint account, I should add.
Q135 Mr Curry: You only had a joint account?
Mr Galloway: Yes.
Q136 Mr Curry: Mr McKay is reported to have told The Sunday Telegraph that you and Dr Abu Zayyad have always maintained separate bank accounts, in fact that was not the case. Your wife may have had her own account but—
Mr Galloway: It is clear that she had at least one account in the Middle East , yes.
Now as was also pointed out in the report Galloway often had his expenses made out to “Amineh Abu Zayyad” and paid into their joint account at the Cooperative bank. Of course it is only necessary to have one of the account holders names on the transaction to deposit to a joint account.
Now what about Oil for Food Cash? Where did that go?
As the Senate Investigation shows, The Mariam Appeal's agent in Bagdhad, Fawaz Zureikat, made a number payments containing OFF cash in the week of 4th August 2000. including
- $340,000 to the Mariam Appeal
- $150,000 to Amineh Abu Zayyad
- $15,666 to Ron McKay
What was the nature of the payment that was made to Galloway's wife and press spokesman, by his business partner Fawaz Zureikat? Was this money a gift, or was it in the nature of a commission or other similar payment?
Galloway's wife had her money paid into a Citibank account in Jordan and seven days later transferred $24,950 into a UK Cooperative bank account in the UK.
So perhaps George could clear all this up.
Did his joint Cooperative bank account receive the payment originating from the Oil Deals?
Or had his wife of three months opened another Cooperative bank account he claims to know nothing about?
And what happened to the rest of the $150,000 paid to his wife by Mr Zureikat?
Once more and yet again I have been cleared of taking a single penny or in any way personally benefiting from the former Iraqi regime through the Oil for Food programme or any other means.
What the report actually said is that it found “no evidence” that Galloway had benefited personally.
Perhaps that could be because they haven’t looked at Galloway's bank account?
In his evidence to the committee Galloway confirmed the following:
Q134 Mr Curry: You only had a joint account?
Mr Galloway: Yes, we only had a joint account. I only had a joint account, I should add.
Q135 Mr Curry: You only had a joint account?
Mr Galloway: Yes.
Q136 Mr Curry: Mr McKay is reported to have told The Sunday Telegraph that you and Dr Abu Zayyad have always maintained separate bank accounts, in fact that was not the case. Your wife may have had her own account but—
Mr Galloway: It is clear that she had at least one account in the Middle East , yes.
Now as was also pointed out in the report Galloway often had his expenses made out to “Amineh Abu Zayyad” and paid into their joint account at the Cooperative bank. Of course it is only necessary to have one of the account holders names on the transaction to deposit to a joint account.
Now what about Oil for Food Cash? Where did that go?
As the Senate Investigation shows, The Mariam Appeal's agent in Bagdhad, Fawaz Zureikat, made a number payments containing OFF cash in the week of 4th August 2000. including
- $340,000 to the Mariam Appeal
- $150,000 to Amineh Abu Zayyad
- $15,666 to Ron McKay
What was the nature of the payment that was made to Galloway's wife and press spokesman, by his business partner Fawaz Zureikat? Was this money a gift, or was it in the nature of a commission or other similar payment?
Galloway's wife had her money paid into a Citibank account in Jordan and seven days later transferred $24,950 into a UK Cooperative bank account in the UK.
So perhaps George could clear all this up.
Did his joint Cooperative bank account receive the payment originating from the Oil Deals?
Or had his wife of three months opened another Cooperative bank account he claims to know nothing about?
And what happened to the rest of the $150,000 paid to his wife by Mr Zureikat?
# posted by 
: Wed Jul 25, 12:58:00 PM EDT
: Wed Jul 25, 12:58:00 PM EDT
Tim. Thank you for comment.
It will be interesting to see what, if anything, becomes of all this.
Several things work against us. Our attention spans are short, including our sometimes suspect media types. Also, as political scandals go, there is always so much "fresh meat" that there's often not time or space for "old news". I truly believe that many politicians know that and actually count on it.
I don't have a blood lust; however, during some weak moments, I kind of wish these crooks were subject to some "fundamentalist" laws and punishments.
Post a Comment
It will be interesting to see what, if anything, becomes of all this.
Several things work against us. Our attention spans are short, including our sometimes suspect media types. Also, as political scandals go, there is always so much "fresh meat" that there's often not time or space for "old news". I truly believe that many politicians know that and actually count on it.
I don't have a blood lust; however, during some weak moments, I kind of wish these crooks were subject to some "fundamentalist" laws and punishments.
<< Home
