British MP on Saddam's payroll

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

I thought only French and Russians do this kinda stuff?? That’s what Fox told me… oh! almost forgot.. Syrians too.

Galloway was in Saddam’s pay, say secret Iraqi documents

George Galloway, the Labour backbencher, received money from Saddam Hussein’s regime, taking a slice of oil earnings worth at least £375,000 a year, according to Iraqi intelligence documents found by The Daily Telegraph in Baghdad.

A confidential memorandum sent to Saddam by his spy chief said that Mr Galloway asked an agent of the Mukhabarat secret service for a greater cut of Iraq’s exports under the oil for food programme.

He also said that Mr Galloway was profiting from food contracts and sought “exceptional” business deals. Mr Galloway has always denied receiving any financial assistance from Baghdad.

Asked to explain the document, he said yesterday: “Maybe it is the product of the same forgers who forged so many other things in this whole Iraq picture. Maybe The Daily Telegraph forged it. Who knows?”

When the letter from the head of the Iraqi intelligence service was read to him, he said: “The truth is I have never met, to the best of my knowledge, any member of Iraqi intelligence. I have never in my life seen a barrel of oil, let alone owned, bought or sold one.”

In the papers, which were found in the looted foreign ministry, Iraqi intelligence continually stresses the need for secrecy about Mr Galloway’s alleged business links with the regime. One memo says that payments to him must be made under “commercial cover”.

For more than a decade, Mr Galloway, MP for Glasgow Kelvin, has been the leading critic of Anglo- American policy towards Iraq, campaigning against sanctions and the war that toppled Saddam.

He led the Mariam Appeal, named after an Iraqi child he flew to Britain for leukaemia treatment. The campaign was the supposed beneficiary of his fund- raising.

But the papers say that, behind the scenes, Mr Galloway was conducting a relationship with Iraqi intelligence. Among documents found in the foreign ministry was a memorandum from the chief of the Mukhabarat to Saddam’s office on Jan 3, 2000, marked “Confidential and Personal”.

It purported to outline talks between Mr Galloway and an Iraqi spy. During the meeting on Boxing Day 1999, Mr Galloway detailed his campaign plans for the year ahead.

The spy chief wrote that Mr Galloway told the Mukhabarat agent: “He [Galloway] needs continuous financial support from Iraq. He obtained through Mr Tariq Aziz [deputy prime minister] three million barrels of oil every six months, according to the oil for food programme. His share would be only between 10 and 15 cents per barrel.”

Iraq’s oil sales, administered by the United Nations, were intended to pay for only essential humanitarian supplies. If the memo was accurate, Mr Galloway’s share would have amounted to about £375,000 per year.

The documents say that Mr Galloway entered into partnership with a named Iraqi oil broker to sell the oil on the international market.

The memorandum continues: “He [Galloway] also obtained a limited number of food contracts with the ministry of trade. The percentage of its profits does not go above one per cent.”

The Iraqi spy chief, whose illegible signature appears at the bottom of the memorandum, says that Mr Galloway asked for more money.

“He suggested to us the following: first, increase his share of oil; second, grant him exceptional commercial and contractual facilities.” The spy chief, who is not named, recommends acceptance of the proposals.

Mr Galloway’s intermediary in Iraq was Fawaz Zureikat, a Jordanian. In a letter found in one foreign ministry file, Mr Galloway wrote: “This is to certify that Mr Fawaz A Zureikat is my representative in Baghdad on all matters concerning my work with the Mariam Appeal or the Emergency Committee in Iraq.”

The intelligence chief’s memorandum describes a meeting with Mr Zureikat in which he said that Mr Galloway’s campaigning on behalf of Iraq was putting “his future as a British MP in a circle surrounded by many question marks and doubts”.

Mr Zureikat is then quoted as saying: “His projects and future plans for the benefit of the country need financial support to become a motive for him to do more work and, because of the sensitivity of getting money directly from Iraq, it is necessary to grant him oil contracts and special and exceptional commercial opportunities to provide him with an income under commercial cover, without being connected to him directly.”

Mr Zureikat is said to have emphasised that the “name of Mr Galloway or his wife should not be mentioned”.

2

Spoon, dont be silly these documnets does not prove anything. Dont you see he was only helping Iraqi people get food and medicine. US and Uk are only trying to help the Iraqis. If only iraqis will submit and do as they are told they will benefit in the long run.

3

Spoon, welcome back :)

>>A confidential memorandum sent to Saddam by his spy chief said that Mr Galloway asked an agent of the Mukhabarat secret service for a greater cut of Iraq's exports under the oil for food programme.<<
hmmm that's interesting. Galloway's stance on sanctions, war, and Arab issues in general is well-known. He's been a passionate opponent of the sanctions since i can remember. A short while subsequent to the invasion against Iraq having taken place, Galloway was also the one who called for British forces to rise up in mutiny against their govt'l. orders. He received a lot of flak for that.

If it is accurate that he asked for a 'greater cut' of revenues from contracts made under the 'oil-for-food' programme - then that might explain his ardent stance against the sanctions. He might have believed that, if the embargo was lifted, his stance would earn him a positive position in the post-sanctions reconstruction of Iraq (of course under Hussein's regime). i am NOT certain how accurate that is, just my speculations.

4

The allegations have been denied

Galloway threatens to sue Telegraph

Ciar Byrne
Tuesday April 22, 2003

Galloway: ‘smear campaign’

Labour MP George Galloway today vowed to sue the Daily Telegraph for libel over its explosive front page story alleging that he was in the pay of Saddam Hussein.

The Telegraph’s Baghdad correspondent, David Blair, discovered a confidential memorandum in the looted office of the Iraqi foreign minister that purported to show that Mr Galloway received a share of oil earnings from the toppled dictator’s regime worth £375,000 a year.

However, Mr Galloway strenuously denied the claims and said the evidence was fabricated as part of a smear campaign against him.

“I will be suing for libel, without any equivocation. The Daily Telegraph produces no evidence for the serious allegations that they make other than a document, which they say popped into their hands in a search through a cruise missile and smoke blackened building,” Mr Galloway told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

"I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned a barrel of oil, bought or sold a barrel of oil… What I can tell you is that I have never had any such conversation with anyone that was described apparently in these documents which the Daily Telegraph have miraculously had in their hands. Therefore somebody somewhere has fabricated them.

“I expected a witch-hunt, which has been going on now for some weeks… a kind of hate campaign being built up, and so I have been expecting that atmosphere of witch-hunt to continue, but I am surprised at the allegations in the Daily Telegraph this morning,” he added.

However, Blair told Today he was convinced the document implicating Mr Galloway was genuine.

"Nobody steered me in that direction at all. We just went and purely by chance we stumbled across this room which had these files in it, and again purely by chance we came across these files which carried the label Britain. And it was two days before we had actually gone through the contents and found this document.

“I find it very hard to believe that this document is not authentic. I think it would require an enormous amount of imagination to believe that someone went to the trouble of composing a forged document in Arabic and then planting it in a file of patently authentic documents and burying it in a darkened room on the off-chance that a British journalist might happen upon it and might bother to translate it. That strikes me as so wildly improbable as to be virtually inconceivable.”

The editor of the Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore, told Today he stood by the newspaper’s story.

"The state of documents in any ministry in Iraq is not in apple pie order, but your listeners heard David Blair, our correspondent who found the document, describe the situation, and that seems to be a strong prima facie case that these are genuine documents.

“When you find a document of this sort, what you need to establish is the prima facie case for its validity, and then you get the other side of the story, you get the person in question to put his side. That is what we have done. I would think that would be perfectly conventional journalistic behaviour.”

The memo, which the Telegraph claims was sent to Saddam by the head of the Iraqi intelligence service, said Mr Galloway had asked for a greater cut of Iraq’s exports under the oil for food programme and that he was profiting from food contracts.

Moore argued that the memo suggested Mr Galloway had received money.

"What the memo says is that he got a lot but he is asking for more. It says that he has already obtained money through the oil for food programme, and he has also obtained what it calls a limited number of food contracts with the ministry of trade. The percentage of profits does not go above 1%.

“This is all a memo of a meeting with Mr Galloway which took place on Boxing Day 1999, and what the memo says is that Mr Galloway wants more than that.”

Galloway denied any such meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer had ever taken place, adding, “Mr Moore is in big trouble with his front page exclusive today”.

"I have never in my life to my knowledge ever met an Iraqi intelligence agent, and given my access, as is well known, to the very top leadership in Iraq on the political side, why would I conceivably wish to have such a conversation with an agent?

"The only thing extremely clear about this story is that it is clearly false, and will be demonstrated in the courts of law as false.

**"It is really very straightforward. If I had sold oil under the oil for food programme and sold food to Iraq under the oil for food programme, the cheques would have been written by the United Nations in New York.

“So all we will have to do is check with the UN whether they have ever written me any cheques, when they wrote them and where the money went. And no such thing ever happened.”**

Mr Galloway is often jokingly referred to as the “MP for Baghdad Central” after campaigning for more than a decade against Anglo-American policy towards Iraq and the sanctions imposed on Saddam’s regime.

He came under fire from the Sun during the Iraqi conflict when he described Tony Blair and George Bush as “wolves” over their military intervention.

The MP for Glasgow Kelvin responded by accusing the Sun of “cancerous racist pornographic propaganda”.

Today he dismissed the Telegraph’s story as part of the same “smear campaign” against him.

“This attack is part of a smear campaign against those who stood against the illegal and bloody war on Iraq and against its occupation by foreign forces,” he said.

"As I am out of the country, writing a book about Iraq, I have not seen the so-called ‘documents’ the Telegraph - a highly partisan source - claims to have access to.

"The idea that such documents have, as if to order, come to light just days after the massive assault on Baghdad, the looting and destruction of its ministries and government buildings, and the chaos in the country must be treated as highly suspect.

"This is especially so in the light of the widespread deception and forgery deployed already by those bent upon war on Iraq, for example in the so-called ‘Dossier’ and in the forged documents, now discredited, appearing to show Iraqi purchases of uranium from Niger.

“Without having seen the Telegraph’s documents, from the way they have been described to me I can state that they bear all the hallmarks of having been either forged or doctored and are designed to discredit those who stood against the war.”

5

Even if he was paid for what he did for Iraq, is it bad? treason? Many US senators are paid for "public relationing" for Israel, Pakistan, India... what would that be called?

6

Kaleem.. i know, i know.. sorry for bringing up these awful subjects.. boy I sure am glad Patriot II isn't out yet or I could be in the slammer now.. :D But seriously...

Nadia.. thanks for the welcome.. had some fun out there, and finally some good food (and none of it was English :p)
[QUOTE]
"He suggested to us the following: first, increase his share of oil; second, grant him exceptional commercial and contractual facilities." The spy chief, who is not named, recommends acceptance of the proposals.
[/QUOTE]
Your theory sounds reasonable.. afterall, isn't that what everyone was trying to do? Before 9/11 Cheney was pushing hard to lower economic sanctions to get the business rolling...

Rhia.. I was hoping someone would post this.. But didn't Richard Perle say similar things over his accusations? Interesting how the Telegraph included some of these statements but not all, eh? Those that you bolded make a little too much sense. Supposing that the documents in question were obtained as reported it does make the forgery complaint difficult.. but i'll hold off on that judgement (in either direction) for now. If it is authentic there still remain many unanswered questions. I hope that in this case we don't again forget that the burden of proof lie with the accuser.

changez.. so true - this sort of thing is common practice, only those that get caught [without backing] can be blamed. The only thing that makes this case special is that Iraq is in the spotlight.. lets not talk about those politicians lobbying to do business with Zimbabwe, etc.

7

Spoon… lol. And what is so wrong with English food? :smiley:

This is Galloway’s full public statement. i assume it was released yesterday. And a few other links related to this issue:

Galloway agrees to open appeal fund books, Steven Morris and Jamie Wilson
The Guardian, 23 April 2003

Intelligence experts claim find likely to be authentic
Steven Morris, Richard Norton-Taylor and Brian Whitaker
The Guardian, 23 April 2003

How the evidence stacks up, Owen Bowcott and Clare Dyer
The Guardian, 23 April 2003

8

Frankly an MP in the paid employ of a foreign country is treason. It’s ironic to go back over the sanctions folder and realize that alot of the Galloway pronouncements against Sanctions were actually paid politcal advertisements…

Those stacks of documents are going to be GOLD MINES!

Here is another good article:

For a Flamboyant Laborite, Iraq Looks to Be His Epitaph
By WARREN HOGE

ONDON, April 24 — For anyone worried that the House of Commons has become too well-behaved to produce defiant oratory and eccentric behavior, George Galloway is a throwback to a provocative and histrionic past.

His leftist politics, permanent suntan, dapper dress and taste for the globe-trotting high life have earned him nicknames like “Gorgeous George” and the “Bollinger Bolshevik.” The Spectator magazine, no fan of leftists, admired his skill at orotund phrase-turning so much it awarded him its Debater of the Year award in 2001.

More recently, however, his act has lost its following. His fellow legislators now refer to him as “the member for Baghdad Central” and ridicule him for his expressions of admiration for Saddam Hussein and his frequent glad-handing trips to the Iraqi capital.

When Prime Minister Tony Blair was pondering a question in Parliament this month about who in Iraq would be qualified to deliver the unconditional surrender that Britain was seeking, an anonymous legislator brought the House down by shouting, “George Galloway!”

This week Mr. Galloway has proven a godsend to London editors wondering what Iraq-related stories to put on their front pages now that the war itself has ended. “Galloway Was in Saddam’s Pay, Say Secret Iraqi Documents,” in Tuesday’s Daily Telegraph, was the headline that signaled their rescue.

A Telegraph correspondent, David Blair, reported that he had found documents in the burned-out Foreign Ministry in Baghdad signed by top aides of Mr. Hussein alleging that Mr. Galloway was receiving $600,000 a year from Iraq’s intelligence agencies in oil-for-food program earnings while ostensibly campaigning for an anti-poverty charity that he set up. The newspaper also said the file showed that Mr. Galloway was pushing the Iraqis for new commercial contracts to make more money.

Mr. Galloway, interviewed by newspapers and television networks at his holiday beach home on Portugal’s Mediterranean coast, denied the charges, calling the newspaper report “a pile of black propaganda” and “intelligence hocus pocus” based on forgeries.

He said he had never met with anyone he knew to be an Iraqi intelligence official, and he said he would sue the newspaper in what he called “the libel case of the century.” He added, “The Telegraph is in big trouble.”

The newspaper responded Wednesday by publishing a new story based on what it identified as a memo from a senior Hussein aide saying that Mr. Galloway’s demands were exorbitant and that he was no longer affordable.

Today The Telegraph expanded on that report, saying the documents showed the regime providing Mr. Galloway “commercial cover” for his relationship with Iraqi intelligence to protect his reputation in Parliament.

It also published comments from a high-ranking Iraqi defector authenticating the documents and an interview with an Anglican cleric responsible for aid to Iraq who said it was “balderdash” to claim that Western visitors to Baghdad were not in the constant company of intelligence agents.

Though the antiwar contingent in Parliament is large and vocal, none of the rebellious lawmakers have come to Mr. Galloway’s defense. He has been discredited by frequently replayed television footage showing him in 1994 warmly greeting Mr. Hussein and praising him with the words, “Sir, I salute your strength, your courage and your indefatigability.”

In the early days of the war, he told Abu Dhabi TV that Mr. Blair and President Bush were attacking Iraq “like wolves,” and he urged British soldiers not to fight.

Mr. Galloway, 48, was born in Dundee, Scotland, and made a name for himself in Labor politics by campaigning for causes in the developing world. He was elected to Parliament from Glasgow in 1987 but soon after had to reimburse the charity he had directed for excessive travel and hotel expenses.

His wife Elaine left him the same year after he confessed to having sex with two other women on a charity trip to the Greek islands. In 2000 he married his current wife, Amineh Abu-Zayyad, a Palestinian biologist working in Glasgow.

Mr. Blair said last week that he thought Mr. Galloway’s comments during the war had been a disgrace, and the Labor Party is looking to expel him. It will likely have to wait until his threatened court action is finished, but party leaders may have been spared taking direct action by Scotland’s redistricting for the next election. It has eliminated his Glasgow seat.

In what could be his true political epitaph, however, The Evening Standard in London said today, “For a man who claims to have dedicated his life to helping the disadvantaged, George Galloway has spent a good deal of it helping himself.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/24/international/worldspecial/24CND-BRIT.html

9

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Frankly an MP in the paid employ of a foreign country is treason. It's ironic to go back over the sanctions folder and realize that alot of the Galloway pronouncements against Sanctions were actually paid politcal advertisements......
.....
[/QUOTE]

what should be done with all those senators who get paid by for lobbying for countries like India, Pakistan, Israel?

10

Please show me where Senators are paid for lobbying in this fashion.

American politicians can accept campaign contributions, under limited circumstances, and in very small amounts. That money does not go directly into the pocket of the politician.

The money that Galloway apparently received would make him a foreign agent, and in most countries that would have to be disclosed. I expect that charges will be filed, and that he may not quickly return from his vacation villa in Portugal. by the way, I blieve his wife is Arafat's niece! Perhaps they can get Palestine established in time for him to seek asylum there....

11

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Please show me where Senators are paid for lobbying in this fashion.

American politicians can accept campaign contributions, under limited circumstances, and in very small amounts. That money does not go directly into the pocket of the politician.

The money that Galloway apparently received would make him a foreign agent, and in most countries that would have to be disclosed. I expect that charges will be filed, and that he may not quickly return from his vacation villa in Portugal. by the way, I blieve his wife is Arafat's niece! Perhaps they can get Palestine established in time for him to seek asylum there....
[/QUOTE]

OG do you really think that we are so naive that we will accept your word that no american politician pockets the money from special interest. Have you forgotten about Dick cheney already? Have you forgotten how qucikly all associations of Bush administration to enron were swept under the rug. Please try your tactics on someone who will still buy your story. Maybe you want to try the native Indians again... they are still willing to sell their land for a bottle of whisky and $2.

12

Kaleem,

During the 1980's I was the treasurer for a Political Action Committee (PAC) formed by people from my company. We registered in Massachusetts, and we were audited every year to account for every freakin' dime! I served on the Board of another industry PAC during the same time.

I hated the job, as the jail time was so severe if anybody screwed up. I can assure you that the process is much cleaner that you would ever imagine. In the US politics are not as much about money, as about intangibles such as "influence, friendship, credibility, access, and a constituent base". Those who come from other countries are often stuck in the mind set that there is money furiously going back and forth under the tables. This is crass and unsophisticated.

The only current loophole (and one you could drive a truck through) is called "soft money". The rules for money given to a political party are much looser in terms of the amounts that can be given, than the money that can be given directly to the campaign committee of a candidate. Thus the Republican Party (and any other party) can collect large contributions, which are largely used for commercial advertising during the elections, as well as computers, mailings, websites and other election related expenses.

Accepting money from a foreign power is even more suicidal politically. Galloway may never set foot again in England, as what he has done, particularly during war time, is blatantly illegal.

13

i wouldn’t be surprised IF Galloway was responsible for this - but let’s remember, these allegations are just that - allegations at this point.

One man’s folly (assuming that he is indeed genuinely guilty of this) should not taint other issues, whose consequences affect millions of innocent individuals, particularly children.

Scandal or smear?, Matthew Tempest, The Guardian, 24 April 2003

Galloway: others may have taken money, Richard Norton-Taylor, Sarah Hall and Jamie Wilson
The Guardian, 24 April 2003

14

Nadia,

I agree, sanctions should be lifted immediately. This is indeed what the US promised they would do prior to the war. Funny that the Security Council did not act immediately to cancel the sanctions.

Why do you think that is? Sort of ironic huh?

But to imagine that the pending indictment of one of the loudest anti-sanctions critics will not taint the "movement" is hard to believe.

15

deja vu. i think we had a similar discussion about this, but regarding Scott Ritter. We have plenty of left-wing (current and retired) British politicians who “represent” (if that’s the right word) this anti-sanctions/anti-war movement much better. Tony Benn - one of the most revered British Labour politicians ever - is one classic example (i’ve probably jinxed it - i bet some sort of porn allegations will come out about him in the next week :smiley: ).

ps- Welcome back :slight_smile: :flower1:

16

OG, UN did not act so quickly, because they like to do the things according to the resolutions. You still remember those, dont you? Its states very clearly in the Resolutions that sanctions will be lifted once it has been certified by the UN weapon inspector that Iraq is free of WMDs.
Now lets consider the irony, US and UK were the biggest opposer of lifting the sanctions and giving inspectors more time to find and destroy WMDs. Now that the Iraq is under US control and they have not found even one WMD or chemical weapon they want the sanctions lifted. :konfused:
This my friend is the height of hypocrisy and deceit. This proves only one thing, that Hans Blix and Scott Ritter were correct when the say that Iraq has no checmical or weapons of mass destruction.

17

“anti-sanctions/anti-war” movement leaders like “Moonbeam” Kucinich? And Scott “meet me in the Burger King Parking lot little girl” Ritter?

Frankly I respect some of the anti-war group, but it does collect some whack-jobs too.

And thank you! :flower1:

It’s good to have a vacation from Gupshup and come back to know that things really haven’t changed that much!

18

Kaleem,

"OG, UN did not act so quickly, because they like to do the things according to the resolutions. "

What a load of crap.

If the Security Council had really wanted to they could have passed a resolution stating that the immediate lifting of the sanctions was in the best interest of the Iraqi people, and it could have been done in a heartbeat!

If you had read my posts, you would understand that my personal opinion is that I do not care a wit about WMD. I have believed all along that Saddam's genocide on his people was reason enough to remove him. If they find WMD it would be a vindiction, but the outcome is the same.

And frankly the UN should have taken the lead in Bosnia, and Rwanda, and Cambodia. The UN blue helmet's should not have been standing around while 8,000 Muslims were killed at Srbrenca.

The best suggestion I have seen lately is the formation of the United Democratic Nations. No dictators or petty tyrants allowed. No committee chairs on Human Rights Committees for countries that should be indicted. The UN has lost it's moral compass, and it's resolutions should be fewer, more thoughtful and timely, and backed up with united credible force. Annan should step down, and the requirements for entry into the UN should be rethought. Saddam's regime did not deserve a seat at the table. They did not deserve a vote.

So let's face it. Some of the anti-War/anti-sanctions folks were not so pure. France and Russia want their business deals and their debt repaid, and one of the loudest anti-war advocates was literally on the Saddam's payroll. Bought and paid for.... Plenty of hypocracy to go around.....

19

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
*"anti-sanctions/anti-war" movement leaders like "Moonbeam" Kucinich? And Scott "meet me in the Burger King Parking lot little girl" Ritter? Frankly I respect some of the anti-war group, but it does collect some whack-jobs too.
[/QUOTE]
**

Operative word being "some". We also have the longest-serving Labour MP in the history of the Labour party, Tony Benn (retired now). Not to mention Denis Halliday, Hans von Sponeck, Nelson Mandela, etc.

20

[QUOTE]
If the Security Council had really wanted to they could have passed a resolution stating that the immediate lifting of the sanctions was in the best interest of the Iraqi people, and it could have been done in a heartbeat!
[/QUOTE]

Ohioguy, fortunately/unfortunately your personal opinion does not count. If UN is so full of crap, then why did US use it to enforce the resolutions? You actually missed the point of my post, which clearly states that sanctions will be lifted when Iraq is certified by UN inspectors as free of WMDs. Is that so hard to do for the biggest and the strongest army in the worls? they control allof Iraq, come on...just oen maybe one... IS US ready to declare Iraq free of WMDs? If not Why not? Are they afraid of the public's (mostly Arabs) backlash?

I agree we shall not allow any tyrants, or the countries who have been indicted with violation fo human rights. That will take care of most of the middle east including Israel. We can go on from there.