Scottish MP: Iraqi elections are 'flawed beyond redemption'

[Bleys]

Interview:

"They're a farce. They're rigged. An election held under foreign military occupation is always, by definition, utterly flawed. But one which is held in the kind of conditions in which this one is being held is flawed beyond redemption. The facts are that it is simply impossible to hold an election when there is a full-scale war going on between the occupying armies and the resistance forces. The Sunni Muslim population, which if you add the Sunni Kurds and the Sunni Arabs together, is some 40% of the population, are deeply anxious about the way in which the occupying forces are deliberately trying to divide the country along confessional lines. The Sunni Arab population has boycotted the election almost in their entirety. The Iraqis living outside for whom security was not an issue, three quarters of them have voted with their feet and boycotted the election. Less than a quarter of the eligible voters have registered to vote and fewer still have cast their votes. So, this is a festival, a farce that's been held to validate the American-British invasion and occupation of Iraq. But it will not validate it, neither in the eyes of the world opinion, nor, more importantly, in the eyes of those Iraqis who are resisting the foreign occupation and the war will go on, I'm sorry to say."

More: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/31/1517207

-josh
mockriot - news discussion

[Bleys]

1. Er, sorry

This probably shouldn't be in breaking news. I didn't realize what forum I was in. My bad. Feel free to move it to the right forum. :)

-josh
mockriot - news discussion

[VegasWolf]

2. Think bush will point this out when he takes a bow tomorrow for the

election?

[Merlot]

3. When you put it like this

When all these facts are pointed out, I'm starting to believe that we were just fed another "feel good" story - "a farce that's been held to validate the American-British invasion."

I did predict that there wouldn't be any major interuptions or violence during the elections. I knew bushco wouldn't let that happen, or let us hear about it.

[Zeke]

5. Come on !!!

What does it take?

Name one thing Bush Inc. has done that's
truthful, honest, in the people's best
interest---name one thing?!

The Iraqi "election" was another
weapon of mass distraction.

[postulater]

4. I wonder if

the insurgents voted.

Was there a party called the Insurgents?

I can see it. "Insurgents register here."

;)

[AnnInLa]

23. Good Point....it would probably be more

accurate to start calling them the Resistance Fighters (the Resistance), since their numbers probably contain many Iraqis who are opposed to the occupation, rather than being international terrorists.

I vote for new terminology....Resistance, not Insurgency.

[Psephos]

6. The quote is from George Galloway, who was thrown out of his own party

Thrown out for being on Saddam's secret payroll to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars or maybe a lot more, and lying about the uses to which the funds of his charity, the Mariam Appeal, were put (they were used for Galloway's clandestine international political activities, and his personal enrichment, not for "the children"). Galloway somehow was able to purchase an expensive Spanish villa, paid for in cash, on his MP's salary. Galloway is also famous for bringing serial libel suits against anyone who sneezes in his direction, and has learned how to manipulate British law to his own enrichment.

This guy is bad news, the worst kind of cynic, who co-opts the political indulgence of those who actually believe in the principles of progressive politics. Galloway believes only in himself. He is a textbook example of a man with Narcisstic Personality Disorder. In short, he preys upon liberal good will, and feels, to use the memorable phrase of Aleister Crowley, "the universe is his to suck."

Steer clear.

[Wind Dancer]

7. Do you have a link for that info?

[not systems]

8. Except that he wasn't on "Saddam's secret payroll" but...

was the victim of a smear campaign that you are continuing
right now.

[Wind Dancer]

10. Yes, the smear campaign continues.

[Djinn]

9. would you like to prove any of that?

because the scumsheets in the UK tried to pin this bullshit on him to and he won the defamation suit.

Galloway was also thrown out of the Labour Party for "bring it into disrepute" which meant he called a spade a spade and a war mongering enabling bunch of assholes a war mongering enabling bunch of assholes.

He was expelled for not towing the party line.

You should get evidence for your slanderous claims or take them back ASAP.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Psephos]

16. If we don't police our own, the wingnuts will do it for us

First things first.

I will defend a true progressive with my life's blood. But not a phony like Galloway who parasitizes what we supposedly stand for. Just because he is a leftist is not good enough. He also has to be an honest man. I would have hoped the two went hand in hand.

Despite your apologist's language, Galloway was tossed from the Labour Party because he had compromised his credibility to the point where he had become a political liability. It had little to do with his antiwar stance. If that logic was true, then a third of Parliament would have been excommunicated.

Those "scumsheets" you mention are the Telegraph and the Christian Science Monitor. Riiiight. They aren't exactly my idea of a good morning read, but they're major-league mainstream papers. The Guardian, hardly a RW tool, called the Telegraph reports "a fine piece of enterprising reporting" and said it was essential that the truth of the matter be established. Galloway might pursue a libel claim, but "it is by no means certain to settle the question of who is speaking the truth. ... The focus of the case might be not so much on the truth of the allegations as on the reasonableness of the publication." In conclusion, the Guardian editorial said that "Mr Galloway would be wise to waive any parliamentary privilege and to publish all the accounts for the Mariam Appeal. ... (He) is fighting for his own political life. Full transparency is his only option."

That transparency never came. Galloway refused any and all financial disclosures, although that would have put the matter to rest instantly. I erred by mentioning his Spanish villa; it's actually in Portugal. Such curious timing that he suddenly had 400 grand in his piggy bank to buy it with, just at the time the Iraqi vouchers were alleged to have been paid to him. Again, why not open the books, and be done with it?

Instead, Galloway prevailed in his libel suit by cherry-picking a sympathetic venue, and then somehow prevailing to have the judge hear the case without benefit of jury. If you read the defenses of the Telegraph, they rightly asserted that their stories did not say Galloway was irrefutably guilty, but that there was strong evidence worth investigating further, in the intelligence files found in the bombed Iraqi ministry. Galloway prevailed not through an exonerating examination of the allegations, but upon a legal technicality, in which the judge interpreted the journalists' statements as saying something they did not. Whether the documents implicating Galloway were real, or manufactured by the British Government or the INC or whoever, unfortunately was never answered.

Hmmm. Wasn't that the whole point in the first place? To answer these questions?

Do you wonder when you see smoke, whether there might be fire? Last spring, the same allegations about Galloway were again put forward, based on new evidence uncovered in Congressional investigations into the UN Oil for Food program. There is a thread that connects Galloway to Saddam's oil vouchers. Fawaz Zureikat, a wealthy Jordanian businessman and Galloway associate who traded in oil and electronics with Iraq, is also named in the papers presented to the US Congress as a graft recipient under the program. Zureikat chaired the Mariam Appeal, which Galloway ostensibly launched to pay for the cancer treatment of young Iraqi girl Mariam Hamza, and subsequently plundered to fund his international travels. Galloway has never hidden the fact that Zureikat was involved in the oil trade.

Galloway's own words: "In the Mariam Appeal he was our second biggest benefactor and from the very beginning we made it clear that he was a businessman doing business with Iraq among other people. He was a registered oil trader. If the suggestion is that he was handing me money from the Iraq regime then someone has to provide evidence of that."

Oh, so the chairman of Galloway's fake charity and its second largest contributor just happened to be an oil trader who skimmed fat cash under the Oil for Food program. What a coincidence!

Because the latest evidence was presented before Congress, Galloway will not be able to sue for libel. This is something new for Galloway. Galloway has sued in libel court 20 times. Hello! Does that raise a red flag? He openly boasted that one such victory, against Robert Maxwell, was earmarked to buy himself a red convertible Mercedes. Despite his loudly-proclaimed leftism, Galloway owns property in Portugal and London, a restaurant and affiliated business in Cuba, and indulges a taste for expensive suits and the perks of luxury. Alan Cochrane, also from Galloway's native Dundee, said "That George Galloway has continued so long in public life is a tribute not just to his roguish, but almost entirely phoney, charms but also to the propensity of the British Left to believe that every action of the British and American governments — most especially the latter — is evilly inspired." Another of Cochrane's accounts seals the phoniness issue, as far as I'm concerned.

"Under the tutelage of Galloway, Dundee ... twinned itself with Nablus on the West Bank of the Jordan. It was an unlikely union that saw the PLO flag flying over the Gothic splendour of Dundee's municipal buildings, but it quickly took on a farcical air when, as part of the twinning ceremony, the Mayor of Nablus was presented with a crate of whisky and a kilt by the Scottish delegation. What use a strictly teetotal Muslim, both of whose legs had been blown away in a terrorist explosion, would have had for whisky and kilts was never made clear."

Before I go any farther here, I'm thinking it really doesn't matter what I write, or what links I post. Galloway's defenders tend to get angry whenever anyone points out his long career of unseemly activities and questionable appetites. It's useless to attempt to reason someone out of a belief they were never reasoned into.

So, instead of going on to catalog more of Galloway's escapades, I'll end with a simple question:

Is this the kind of man on whom to spend our credibility and conscience defending?

[Djinn]

17. first of all thanks for admitting you were wrong

about why he was tossed from the Labour Party - it wasn't as you implied because he actually DONE the things he was accused of.

if someone "embarrases" the waste of space that is the UK Labour Party then more power to them (btw I am a UK citizen)

Suing for libel alot? smoke/fire? no not really just someone who the papers and his own political party regularly LIE about because he tells the truth about things the establishment would prefer to keep quiet.

Scumsheets? find me a commercial paper that isn't - I've worked as a journo beleive me they're all shits some aer better at hiding their own agendas

Oh and as for Galloway "refusing" to persent his financial details - ah p'raps you need a refresher course on UK law - the person MAKING THE ACCUSATION has the burden of proof not the other way around. If I called you a paedophile and you couldn't proove you weern't one would that mean we should all be suspect of you???

You have produced yet moer slurs and half truths - so a bloke who contributed to a charity (any reason it's fake by the way or just more slander) dealt with the Iraqi regime HALF THE BUSINESS WORLD and the entire political world was also dealing with Iraq - not sure if anyone mentioned to you they have a rather large stash of oil - tends to attract businessmen.

Your posts are slanderous and vile and your opinions on Galloway are offensive.

[RogueTrooper]

36. Georgous George was tossed from the Labour Party

because he said some very insulting things about the British Army at the start of the Iraq War. That was why he we thrown out of the Party.

[Djinn]

41. no the actual reason

was because he told people not to vote Labour.

never let the truth get in the way of a good bit of propaganda.

[sweetheart]

12. You are spreading lies about George Galloway

He was cleared of the charge for which you speak, moreso, he won a
liabel lawsuit against those who brought those charges (means they
had to pay money to apologize for besmirching his integrity)... and
he's one of the few politiicans from the staunch labour constituency
of Glasgow, to tell the truth and bust the lairs in westminster for
taking britain in to a criminal war.

Get your facts straight. Galloway has stood against the war, and
were i to meet him, i'd shake his hand, and offer to buy him a drink.

:-) George Galloway rocks Glasgow! :-)

[tblue37]

13. One of my best students

spent a year in England working for Galloway. She has the utmost respect for him and his progressive politics. She comes from a rightwing Christian Chinese family from Malaysia, and she says Galloway is the person who taught her to believe in progressive principles.

[Stella_Artois]

24. He was an "associate" of Saddam Hussein.

Saddam used him in his propaganda. A "associate" of Saddam is not one of "the good guys"



I may not support Bush, but i sure as hell don't support Saddam Hussein or his associates.

[sweetheart]

31. He was for averting an ugly war

An you are being silly. Negotiating to avoid a mass murder is not
complicity in mass murder. Rather Bush and the people you obviously
support more, gave saddam weapons and encouraged him to invade iran
that hundreds of thousands have died.

Your moral position in this argument is at the bottom of a murky pool.

[Stella_Artois]

34. Averting war

In 1994 ?

Thats when they first met. Was he afraid that right wing warmonger Bill Clinton was about to invade ?

[sweetheart]

35. Oh, you're just here to bash galloway

The americans DID invade, last time i checked... within a decade,
and George was NOT selling him weapons, no, rather as any sensible
person does, looking to sort out differences, that hundreds of
thousands need not die from more brutal political solutions.

I can show you the same photo of nixon and Mao, Rumsefeld and saddam,
castro and so many others, Hu and the queen, blair and bush, where
war criminals, human rights perverts, are openly talked to, rather
than pushing them underground.

Galloway is a labour man, a common man's poltiician, and he fought
for the rights of the hundreds of thousands of common persons who
were killed by the aristocrats in their hubris. War, inevitably kills
labour constituents more than it does torys... so it is indeed the
job of a labour politician to defuse such issues.

[funnymanpants]

33. This proves what?

You are aware that bogus documents were used to smear Galloway?

Are you saying that just because Galloway met with Saddam, he was an associate? At the high school I work at, I regulary meet with students who have criminal records. Am I an their associate? Am I part of their gang?

[Djinn]

42. provide evidence please

[rayofreason]

14. Galloway

Galloway!!!!

Yikes. The worst kind of Saddam apologist - a bought one. Kicked out of the Labour Party. Truely radioactive.

Thanks for pointing this out Psephos.

[Djinn]

18. please provide evidence

or like Psephos STFU, I don't know how good an idea it is for newbies to post slanderous info on DU

[rayofreason]

19. evidence

Here is evidence. Whether you accept it as such, or deem it slanderous, is another matter.

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA16404

[funnymanpants]

25. Bogus information

You are citing information that has already been proven bogus. The documentation mentioned in MEMRI (a notorious right-wing site) was proven *forged,* which is why Galloway won the lawsuit against the Telegraph.

[funnymanpants]

27. Here is the evidence

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/gall-j05.shtml

"Scottish Labour MP George Galloway has issued High Court libel proceedings against the Telegraph newspaper over a claim that he received money from Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. The move follows a public apology to Galloway by the Christian Science Monitor for having made similar allegations based on forged documents."

Sorry I couldn't come up with the CSM itself apologizing, but if you do a google search, you will get tons of hits.

I hope you made an honest mistake and you have no other motives in spreading what was an obvious smear.

[Englander]

30. Memri?!?! {{snarf}}

Galloway wins libel case against Telegraph

Chris Tryhorn
Thursday December 2, 2004

Former Labour MP George Galloway has won his libel action against the Daily Telegraph and been awarded £150,000 in damages.

High Court judge David Eady said the allegations that he was in the pay of Saddam Hussein were "seriously defamatory" and said he had no option but to award the Scottish MP, who was one of the most outspoken critics of the war compensation of the upper end of the scale awarded in a non-jury libel action.

The high court ruled that Telegraph had defamed Mr Galloway when it published a report claiming documents found in Baghdad during the Iraq war last year alleged he was in the pay of Saddam Hussein.

Mr Justice Eady said he was "obliged to compensate Mr Galloway in respect of the publications and the aggravated features of the defendants' subsequent conduct, and to make an award for the purposes of restoring his reputation".

In a packed court he added: "I do not think those purposes would be achieved by any award less than £150,000."

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1364526,00.html


:hi:

[funnymanpants]

32. Memri--yes, snarf is right

Yes, snarf is the right derogatory adjective used to describe Memri! This organization is very good at subtle propaganda. Notice how Memri didn't lie--they just repeated what was later proven to be a lie, and never corrected their website. This allows right-wingers to quote and think they have facts.

Here is some more info about the bogus documents used to smear Galloway:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12947490&method=full&siteid=50143

"A scrawl claimed to be Mr Galloway's signature on "receipts" has no similarity to his real one."

"The operation, revealed by the Mail on Sunday, also threw up glaring misspellings of Iraqi officers' names and mistakes in the title of Saddam's son Qusay, also said to have signed the document."

I am still waiting for an apology from those that on this board that started the smear. How about a "Gee, I had no idea that was the whole story--honest mistake!" I know any one can make a mistake, but I suspect that at least one of the posts, the one citing Memri, was not so honest.

[Psephos]

37. Rashomon

I started out liking Galloway years ago, but there came a point where I felt guilty for doing so. Call it cognitive dissonance.

Regardless of our opinion of him, I think we can all agree that Mr. Galloway is a controversial figure. I've noticed that some people have a problem separating judgment about Galloway's politics (which are attractive) from his character. Some feel his character is as good as his politics. Others look at the same evidence and are troubled. Who is right? To varying degrees, we all are. Whether he is a victim or a scoundrel depends not only upon on the facts, but also upon a subjective element that is different for each of us.

What I see is that many of his supporters will admit that Galloway should have shown better political instincts than to be trafficking with Iraqi unsavories, even if he was doing nothing wrong. His lack of forthrightness concerning the sources of his money would rightly be excoriated by most of us were Galloway a Tory. His extravagant personal habits and appetite for money do not help his image as a man of the people. That he has sued for libel in court twenty times says something too. Each of us can look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions.

I drew my conclusions, based in part upon my experience with shady characters in my own life. They have a way of always talking their way out of situations; you can't listen to what they say, you have to listen to what they do. When I listen to what Galloway does, I don't like what I hear. Too much smoke for there not to be some flames in there somewhere.

Your opinion (and I'm addressing all posters here), based on the same observations, may be opposite mine. That's cool. I don't need to win some argument here, I'm only adding my opinions to the discussion.

So spare me the bile and the indignance, and if you're certain I'm cherry-picking facts here, consider that you may be doing the same thing. Bias is a potent filter. If you really need the gratification of insulting and hating someone, go troll on the freeper site. We all deserve to be treated civilly here on DU, even when - especially when - we have difference of opinion. Otherwise we are nothing more than the Borg.

Real inquiry begins with an examination of evidence and data, and then draws conclusions. False inquiry begins with the conclusion, and then adduces evidence and data to support the conclusion. Only one of these methods leads to results worth having.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. You are now sounding a bit more reasonable

Remeber that your first post in this thread repeated the libels that Galloway fought, and won, in the courts. Don't be too surprised if people throw insults back at you. Perhaps Galloway has fought so many libel actions because he is frequently libelled.

As for Galloway's finances, this is from before the last libel case:

On his own assets, he admits only two properties. A house in Streatham in London bought in 1996 for £220,000, with a mortgage of £290,000 (recently valued at £500,000). His home in Burgau on the Algarve cost £82,000 when bought in 1998. It has a mortgage of £76,000 (recently valued at £125,000). 'I have no other houses.'

He drives an N-registration Mercedes (bought from MP Jimmy Wray) and has an N-registration Range Rover kept in Portugal.
...
AVL Media is listed with a book value of £35,320. Galloway says: 'I've never made a penny from AVL.' He admits to two salaries: one from being an MP (£50,000 a year) and another from a weekly column in the Mail on Sunday, 'which last year gave me £82,000'. He adds: 'I don't own anything else. There is no cafŽ in Cuba or anywhere else.'

On the Pakistan-sponsored London-based newspaper, East, which Galloway helped set up and staff, he claimed to have 'never received a penny'. An extensive investigation by BBC Newsnight into East -- focusing on 'lobbying' money totalling £360,00 -- eventually determined that despite suspect judgement by Galloway, he received no money for his own benefit.

http://www.sundayherald.com/33356

and after the case:

Mr Galloway was a constant target for rightwing snipers. But they had to watch the details. In his career he has been one of parliament's most prolific, and successful, libel litigants, with the total standing around £400,000 following yesterday's win.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/otherparties/story/0,9061,1365674,00.html

So, the Mail on Sunday is paying him large amounts. As an MP, he has to give a fair amount of detail on his finances. They look OK to me. Personally, I don't like the man much (I don't believe his excuse for his brown-nosing of Saddam) but I can't see the evidence for any corruption. He has enough enemies who'd love to find some.

[Psephos]

49. Thank you, this is the kind of cross-discussion I was hoping for

You also seem reasonable. Which means I can learn from you - and did. Instead of lacing into me, you gave me valuable information, and a considered opinion.

That's all I came to DU for in the first place.

[Djinn]

44. provide ACTUAL evidence

You provide nothing except baseless smear used in an attempt to discredit him ALL of which has been refuted

[funnymanpants]

47. You are now switching the topic

You were using a forged document as proof that Galloway was an associate of Saddam. You were indignant and smug.

>>Each of us can look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions.

I can't look at the earth and call it flat. You cannot say with honesty that Saddam was ever on the payroll of Saddam.

[Psephos]

48. You apparently confused me with another poster

I didn't post any document, forged or otherwise. I did not switch the topic (although why wouldn't I, if I wanted to?). I also was not "indignant or smug"...unlike most of those who responded to me as though I had admitted to feeding puppies into a wood chipper. Ad hominem, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. It's no way to have a discussion.

I posted my opinions, not a solicitor's brief; DU is a discussion board, not The Hague. If I'm wrong or right it's not the end of the world. We owe a little respect to each other here. Anything less is hypocrisy, especially considering our political beliefs.

[funnymanpants]

50. No, I didn't

>>Those "scumsheets" you mention are the Telegraph and the Christian Science Monitor. Riiiight.

Here's your post. You wrote "Riiight". Both papers based their reports on a forged document. The CSM apologized. So you did base your statement on a forged document.

That word "riiight" comes off as smug to me.

[Djinn]

43. whether I deem it slander is unimportant

however the courts viewed it as slander and you're helping to disseminate right wing propaganda

[Djinn]

45. seriously?

you've got a handful of posts, your repeating right wing propaganda and you're citing MEMRI :eyes:

[Nihil]

22. No

> Yikes. The worst kind of Saddam apologist - a bought one.

Do you still work for the Telegraph or are you employed at Millbank now?

> Kicked out of the Labour Party.

Not as much of a badge of honour as Robin Cook's (resigned position for
his principles) but at least he isn't tainted by association with Blair
any more ...

Galloway was one of the few actual "Labour" MPs worthy of the name.

[daleo]

20. He sued the Telegraph for slander and won.

They made a lot of scurrilous charges against him and lost $300,000.

If winning a slander charge against the Telegraph is manipulating the British legal system, then I am glad it is still capable of this type of manipulation. Most people call it justice.

[funnymanpants]

28. You are spreading propaganada

The documents used to prove your allegations were *forged!* The Christian Science Monitor apologized for using forged documents.

Will you now apologize?

[henrik larssonisking]

40. galloway

coming from his ward, i gotta say if it wasnt for the university this dope would never get elected, hes as corrupt as the day is long, but as long as he appeals to the student bodies he gets the votes.

[Djinn]

46. so in other words

He wins because the majority of people vote for him! Democracy's is SUCH a pain isn't it LOL!

[fshrink]

11. Now, billions missing

and 8 millions showing up to the polls. If you ask me, that's where they went. Mostly, with a few backshihs here and there. That would compute just fine with everything. After all, buying democracy is a local US custom. Can be exported if that's really necessary. If that were the case, the american people, will have paid taxes to buy fake voting in their own country so that other people in another country could also have fake elections. Worth a Monty Python movie or an Umberto Eco short story.

[struggle4progress]

15. Here's a nice example of what happens to coverage ...

... when the reporter wants to be honest but there's an agenda that must be followed.

Headline reads: Unofficial estimates show high Iraq turnout

Story begins: Voting indications so far show that turnout in the Iraqi elections could reach 50 percent or more, leading politicians whose staff have been monitoring voting across the country say.

Link: http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=663559

[donco6]

21. Sad to think someone actually had to say it.

It's obvious as the nose on your face.

[AnnInLa]

26. It's the CONTENT, stupid

I know nothing about G. Galloway, but the CONTENT/SUBSTANCE of his statements are right on target. This reminds me of yesterday, when it was reported that Gorbachev also said the election was "Fake," then some DUers started attacking Gorbachev. (Also reminds me of memogate, when the substance was overshadowed by attacking the messenger.)

If those are Galloway's words, they are concise, insightful and ring true.

[funnymanpants]

29. Not entirely accurate

I would caution DUers to take Galloway's opinion as accurate. (I just defended him in three other posts, so I have nothing personal against him.)

Look at juancole.com for a more balanced view. Cole believes the elections are deeply flawed--but still a good step forward. He points out how Bush actually opposed these elections all along, but Sitani forced them to happen.

[Megahurtz]

39. Makes me sick when

I see Bush on TV patting himself on the back for "liberating" the Iraqi people through "democracy" by the Electoral Voting System.:puke: