British MP on Saddam's payroll

"which clearly states that sanctions will be lifted when Iraq is certified by UN inspectors as free of WMDs."

First, Iraq is not necessarily free of WMD, and it may take some time to declare them free of WMD. Is it just OK with you that the Iraqi children suffer under sanctions while the country is dug up? Or do you not really care about the Iraqi children except when it meets your Anti-US agenda?

In case you haven't noticed the THREAT from Saddam using WMD has decreased significantly. Why? Because Saddam is, in all probability, nothing more than pink mist. And there are a quarter of a million inspectors on the ground that are actively looking for and watching for WMD. And there are lot's of Saddam's former cronies who all want to cut a deal to avoid being jailed in Basra or the Kurdish areas where there victims might recognize them.

Resolutions and Sanctions can be modified at one meeting in one day. Face it, the anti-US group is now using this issue to attempt to keep control of Iraqi oil money through the Oil-for-Palaces program.

ha.
Note the author of this article.

Galloway’s a crook - how convenient, Scott Ritter
The Guardian, 25 April 2003

…] I was shocked because, if these allegations prove to be true, then the integrity and credibility of a man for whom I have great respect would be dramatically undermined.

But I was also shocked because of the timing of these allegations. Having been on the receiving end of smear campaigns designed to assassinate the character of someone in opposition to the powers that be, I have grown highly suspicious of dramatic revelations conveniently timed to silence a vocal voice of dissent.

…] To allow George Galloway to be silenced now, when his criticisms of British policy over Iraq have been shown to be fundamentally sound, would be a travesty of democracy. Rather than casting him aside, the British people should reconsider his statements in the light of the emerging reality that it is Blair and not Galloway who has been saying things worthy of investigation.

· Scott Ritter was formerly chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq

So Galloway was running a “charity”, which was not registered, and did not have to disclose where it’s money came from. The Mariam Appeal was supposedly for this Iraqi girl who became ill from DU. And Galloway attended the Great Britain Iraq Society, who had among it’s first attendees, none other than Scott “the pervert” Ritter. HMMMMMM!

DU, starving Iraqi children, and Ritter, the plot here is getting pretty thick! Of course, it must be a conspiracy, because we are all being framed by the government. Or, they were blackmailing Scottie boy, after discovering his taste for underage young things. Who knows? That giant sucking sound you hear is some of the credibility of the Saddam apologists going down the toilet.

How a sick girl became a puppet for politics
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 23/04/2003)

George Galloway pursued his campaign on behalf of Saddam Hussein through a succession of organisations. The best-known was the Mariam Appeal, set up in 1998 and named after a four-year-old Iraqi girl suffering from leukaemia who was brought to Britain for treatment.

Three years ago, he hosted the inaugural meeting of the Great Britain Iraq Society in the Grand Committee room of the House of Commons.

Mr Galloway has also been closely involved with the Iraq-Britain Friendship Society and the Emergency Committee in Iraq.

The principal aim of all these groups was to engineer the international rehabilitation of Saddam Hussein and end United Nations sanctions against Iraq.

Who funded them? Until yesterday, Mr Galloway had been unwilling to give any details about the Mariam Appeal.

But after The Daily Telegraph’s disclosures of documents pointing to Iraqi payments, he claimed most of the money had come from the United Arab Emirates, some from Saudi Arabia and the balance from a Jordanian businessman, Fawaz Zureikat.

The Mariam Appeal was not a registered charity and so was not obliged under charities law to publish accounts. As a result, there is no means of knowing whether Saddam Hussein was a donor, as the documents found in Baghdad appear to indicate.

Mr Galloway promoted the appeal by claiming that uranium-tipped weapons used by the allies in the first Gulf war caused the child’s leukaemia. It set a target of £100,000 - half for treating Mariam, with the rest for medicines and medical supplies for other children in Iraq.

He wrote to donors: “Little Mariam Hamza has come to symbolise the suffering children of Iraq. Please give as generously as you can.”

But although money was raised for Mariam to be successfully treated at hospitals in Glasgow and America, the appeal launched in her name became profoundly political, as Mr Galloway acknowledged yesterday.

He called it a “campaign involved in the life-or-death struggle against the might of the British and American state” - which may surprise those who thought they were donating money to help a sick little girl.

In the event, the Mariam Appeal became a vehicle both for opposing sanctions and waging a propaganda campaign against Israel.

According to Mr Galloway, it had funds of about £1 million, which he used to fund a succession of overseas trips. Between September 1999 and January 2002 he made 14 trips paid for by the Mariam Appeal, including one by double-decker bus visiting 11 countries in two months.

The appeal also met the flight costs and hotel bills for visits to Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Lebanon, Hungary, Belgium, New York and Romania, many to attend anti-sanctions conferences.

In November 2000, Mr Galloway - on the pretext of attending a religious conference - flew from a private airfield in Kent via Bulgaria to Baghdad to break the air embargo of Iraq. The Government later said the subterfuge was unnecessary and denied trying to block the flight, again paid for by the Mariam Appeal.

The Mariam Appeal no longer exists. Its website has been taken over and the telephone number for its London headquarters no longer works.

More recently, Mr Galloway’s travels have been sponsored by the Great Britain Iraq Society (GBIS), which he set up in June 2000 at the House of Commons with an inaugural meeting attended by, among others, Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector.

The GBIS promised to “circulate a newsletter, publish material, organise events, exchange visits, organise trade missions . . . and strive to restore the formerly friendly relationship between Great Britain and Iraq”.

It was described as “a society dedicated to working for better understanding, reconciliation and peace between the peoples of Iraq and Great Britain . . . a non-political society in that it eschews direct political action”.

In his capacity as chairman of GBIS, Mr Galloway last year visited Morocco, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Ukraine. It is not known who funded the society, which also paid for visits by at least two Labour backbenchers to Iraq.

In fact, since this first meeting, the society appears not to have existed other than in name. It has no telephone number listed anywhere in Britain, no internet website and appears to have no staff or membership records.

Like a great deal about Mr Galloway, it is shrouded in mystery.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/23/wmari23.xml

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
**That giant sucking sound you hear is some of the credibility of the Saddam apologists going down the toilet.
*
[/QUOTE]

So much hatred for an individual whose only crime, so far, has been to espouse an anti-sanctions and anti-war, position ?

There was an interesting letter in today's Guardian - who's next? Will Nelson Mandela be accused of having a "taste for underage young things"? The Pope has been extremely critical of the embargo, as well as the war - in the late '90s, he had even made public his desire to visit Iraq to show his solidarity with the people suffering under the sanctions. (i wonder if that would be justifications to classify the Pope as a Saddam apologist). No doubt some right-wing newspaper is planning some allegations against the Pope - to surface at a most convenient time.

Now i am seriously wondering who's next in line. Should anyone dare to voice a dissenting opinion, should anyone be so audacious as to exercise their right to freedom of speech - then they might as well stick the label 'I am a pedophile and fraud' on their foreheads. Because of one thing we can be certain - tragically, they will always be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Or perhaps it is easier to believe that these men are noble because you believe in the causes they espouse.

I am not expressing hate. I am mildly amused to see these holier-than-thou icons of the left exposed for what they really are. Pedophiles and crooked politicians......

We shall see.....

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
**Or perhaps it is easier to believe that these men are noble because you believe in the causes they espouse.
*
[/quote]

Yes, perhaps.

[quote]
I am mildly amused to see these holier-than-thou icons of the left exposed for what they really are. Pedophiles and crooked politicians......
[/quote]

:~) Just remember, not all of them. :)

The most important point here, the one that those against Galloway try to abuse, is that the Iraqi money does not change Galloway’s sincerity on the issues he promotes. Some try to say that he doesn’t believe his own words, that they were only uttered for cash.. that is a great stretch. The money can certainly reinforce his persistence in the face of strong opposition, but it did not create his emotion.

Now.. for the other side (I don’t think I’ll post too many of these, I don’t have that much time):

Fund-raiser for GOP pleads guilty in case of child pornography](http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.delgaudio24apr24,0,5369464.story?coll=bal-pe-maryland)

A prominent Republican fund-raiser who once said former President Bill Clinton was “a lawbreaker and a terrible example to our nation’s young people” pleaded guilty yesterday in Baltimore Circuit Court to production of child pornography. …

[QUOTE]
Is it just OK with you that the Iraqi children suffer under sanctions while the country is dug up? Or do you not really care about the Iraqi children except when it meets your Anti-US agenda?
[/QUOTE]

It was OK for you and Madeline notsobright to let the Iraqi children suffer and die when the UN inspectors were stating that Iraq pose no danger. US did not want the sanctions lifted then, because it did not meet the agenda of removing Saddam from power. It was ok to starve the children then? This is exactly the hypocrisy i talk about. Dont get me wrong I want the sanctions lifted, I wanted them lifted 5 years ago, so preach you sermon to the people who do not know the history behind these brutal sanctions.

Oooppps, the plot thickens with allegations of payments of $10mil from 2000 to 2003! Note that the allegations come from a somewhat left wing Christian Science Monitor, not from the British press. Galloway, of course, is still sitting in Portugal.

Galloway dismisses new $10m claim as ‘farce’
By PA News

George Galloway’s lawyers today said that he was planning legal action over what they said were “totally untrue” claims that Saddam Hussein’s regime authorised payments of more than $10 million (£6.3 million) to the Labour MP.

The fresh accusations against the representative for Glasgow Kelvin were contained in the Boston-based newspaper, The Christian Science Monitor.

Responding to the report, Mr Galloway’s lawyers, Davenport Lyons, said that the newspaper accepted that the authenticity of the documents could not be verified.

“Indeed, the alleged content and wording of the documents referred to in the article raise very serious questions about their authenticity and provenance. George Galloway told us today that he thought the alleged wording is bordering on farce and is more like a Private Eye spoof.”

The newspaper claimed that documents uncovered in a Baghdad house used by Saddam’s son Qusay detailed orders for six payments to Mr Galloway between July 1992 and January 2003 totalling more than $10 million.

“These allegations are also totally untrue,” Davenport Lyons said in a statement. "George Galloway did not visit Iraq before 1993 and has never met Qusay Hussein or even heard of any of the other people whose names are supposed to be mentioned in the documents.

“George Galloway has not received any money from Saddam Hussein’s regime in return for his support or any other reason and he intends to take legal action in respect of the publication of these false allegations. He hopes that the British media will not further disseminate them under the guise of public interest or otherwise.”

The newspaper does not claim that Mr Galloway actually received the millions of dollars or that he asked for or encouraged any payment. It points to questions in The Guardian that raise the possibility that previous documents published by The Daily Telegraph could contain false claims that Iraqi agents could have profited from.

However, it does claim that the two earliest payments, in July of 1992 and October of 1993, are noted down on green stationery as having been delivered.

The Monitor claimed that the three most recent alleged payment authorisations, beginning on April 4, 2000, and ending on January 14, 2003, were for $3 million each.

It said that the January 14, 2003, document, written on Republican Guard stationery with its Iraqi eagle and “Trust in Allah” slogan, called for the “Manager of the security department, in the name of President Saddam Hussein, to order a gratuity to be issued to Mr George Galloway of British nationality in the amount of three million dollars only.”

It said that the document stated that the money was in return for “his courageous and daring stands against the enemies of Iraq, like Blair, the British Prime Minister, and for his opposition in the House of Commons and Lords against all outrageous lies against our patient people…”

The newspaper said that the document was signed by General Saif Adeen Flaya al-Hassan, Colonel Shawki Abed Ahmed, and apparently Qusay - according to the former Iraqi general who, the newspaper said, discovered the files in a house in the Baghdad suburbs used by the President’s son.

This afternoon, speaking from his holiday home in Portugal, Mr Galloway said: Mr Galloway said of the 1992 date: “(At that time) I had never set foot in the country (Iraq), not met an Iraqi leader and they had probably never heard of me.”

Mr Galloway described the latest allegations as “fantastically untrue”, adding that they removed any doubt that "I am the subject of a deliberate campaign of forgery and deception.

i was thinking of posting the same thing, Spoon. lolz.

i agree completely with what you stated above regarding the aspects of sincerity and emotion.