Iraq oil cash funded MPs' campaigns...

[cantwealljustgetalong]

Businessmen handed on money illicitly siphoned from UN deals to pressure groups run by George Galloway and Tam Dalyell

David Leigh and David Pallister
Tuesday February 17, 2004
The Guardian

Money illicitly siphoned from the UN oil-for-food programme by Saddam Hussein was used to finance anti-sanctions campaigns run by British politicians, according to documents that have surfaced in Baghdad.
Undercover cash from oil deals went to three businessmen who in turn supported pressure groups involving the ex-Labour MP George Galloway, Labour MP Tam Dalyell, and the former Irish premier Albert Reynolds, it is alleged in documents compiled by the oil ministry, which is now under the control of the US occupation regime.

Separately, a dossier from the oil ministry in Baghdad has been handed by the British Foreign Office to Customs and Excise, which has been asked to investigate. They were also referred to the Cabinet Office because of their political sensitivity.

"The government has been given copies of certain documents ," a Foreign Office spokeswoman said yesterday. "They are being passed to the appropriate authorities for consideration."

...

The so-called oil list has already caused worldwide embarrassment, with allegations made against prominent people and companies in France, Russia, Switzerland and South Africa, as well as employees at the UN.

Across the world, some of those named agree the lists seem authentic. Others deny it, or say details are exaggerated.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1149796,00.html

[Capt_Nemo]

1. Now that Blair has put Labour on the verge of defeat comes The Guardian...

... with a smear campaign against Galloway, and Dalyell to try to reverse the trend.

You only have to read this paragraph to see from where this is comming:
"...it is alleged in documents compiled by the oil ministry, which is now under the control of the US occupation regime."

Which for me puts a huge question mark on the following paragraph:

"Our investigations in Iraq, New York, Paris, Moscow and London indicate the new British-related documents are authentic, although their meaning is not always clear."

The Guardian is trying now to save Labour from the Tory onslaught by
alingning themselves with the neo-cons running the "Iraqi" oil ministry.
That is wrong. Again ends don't justify the means. They could have
saved Labour if they had exposed Blair for the war criminal he
is, but were afraid to do it. Now their fear of the tories is
leading them into the neo-cons' arms. F*** them!

[mobuto]

2. The same Guardian?

The Guardian is and has always been vehemently anti-war. And how does this help Labour viz. the Torries?

Is this really a smear campaign, or was Galloway funded by Hussein?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

3. Someone may have duped the Guardian.

[mobuto]

4. That's possible

But is it true?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

5. No idea. My presupposition is that Galloway wouldn't be so stupid.

I've met the man, a few times. Yeah, he's a bit of a jerk, but I can't believe he'd be so fucking stupid.

[Capt_Nemo]

6. Well seems that you don't know one of the editors, Andrew Rawnsleigh

... and his agenda.
"Vehemently anti-war", no. Wishy-washy protest of the war in the Guardian,
while wishy-washy pro-war in the Observer, so get your facts right.

As for Galloway the earlier "damning documents" came from the same forge where the Niger Uranium procurement was made, and these
supposed new documents were found, like the torygraph ones, in the oil ministry.
But there are people that always fall for forged documents in glossy
dossiers and "powerfull presentations" to the UN Security Council...

Fool me once... won't get fooled again!


on edit: it helps the Blairite faction by smearing his opponents
painting them as gullible men who should have checked their
donors links by contrast with Blair that supposedly "knows better".
This in turn gives Blair a breathing space from a leadership challenge
that becomes more and more probable each day that passes. And there
are a lot of people in The Guardian's editorial board that are
afraid (wrongfully IMHO) that such challenge would spell electoral
disaster for Labour.

[Briar]

7. Anti war but pro New Labour

Like the cowed BBC, the Guardian has been allowing the New Labour spin machine to re-possess the news agenda and put domestic issues back on the front page. The WMD issue and its challenge to Bliar's tarnished reputation for trustworthiness have both been downgraded in the Guardian's pages, I fear - to find a paper still alive to the horror that is occupied Iraq, one must read the Independent now.

Moreover, despite the highly prejudicial headline, the Guardian's story concludes:

"Our investigations in Iraq, New York, Paris, Moscow and London indicate the new British-related documents are authentic, although their meaning is not always clear.

These files do not implicate Mr Galloway in personal corruption. Nor do they suggest that Mr Dalyell and Mr Reynolds, who always paid their own way, had any knowledge of what was going on.

Mr Galloway said he was unaware that his financial sponsors were getting oil cash from the UN programme. But he accepts that he knew his supporters had links with Saddam's regime, and regarded that as an inevitable price to pay."

The mud they sling at Galloway and Dalyell isn't quite what the angle of the story suggests.