Sunday, May 22, 2005

Galloway, Israeli spies and more

I'm sure some of you were as outraged as I was when CNN, in covering the testimony of Britain's George Galloway, refused to air his damning indictments of the Bush administration. Yet they offered the disingenuous Republican committee chairman Norm Coleman ample opportunity to repeat charges against Galloway which were discredited ages ago. For the truth of the matter, see Scott Ritter's fine piece in the Guardian.

George Galloway, the politician in question, stared down the US Senate subcommittee on homeland security and government affairs, and its notoriously partisan chairman Norm Coleman, and blasted as totally unfounded the committee's allegations that he had profited from oil vouchers in exchange for his anti-war stance. He emerged from the hearing victorious. If only more politicians, British and American alike, were able to display such courage in the face of the atmosphere of neoconservative intimidation prevalent in Washington these days.

Galloway is now the darling of the American left, and has fed punch lines for late-night comics and generated headlines like the New York Post's "Brit fries senators in oil". But mainstream America still seems unable to digest the horrific reality that the MP's testimony underscored: that Senator Coleman's McCarthy-like hearings are but a smoke screen for a crime of horrific proportions.
Wayne Madsen also has a new piece about the Galloway affair. Previously, I've expressed some reservations whenever I've linked to Madsen's work on vote fraud -- his reports, always interesting, placed far too much reliance on unnamed sources making extreme allegations. (Extreme even by my standards.) But my reservations about Madsen's latest are fewer -- although the piece does tend to become less organized as it goes on. Still, it's at least worth a skim:

For Galloway, it was déjà vu. He had already successfully fended off charges that he accepted oil money from Saddam Hussein and successfully sued the neoconservative-owned Daily Telegraph for libel. Articles in the Telegraph and Christian Science Monitor citing documents from the Iraqi Foreign Ministry implicating Galloway in the Oil-for-Food scandal were later determined to be forgeries.

Shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the U.S. occupation authorities in Iraq invited Telegraph reporters into the bombed out remains of Iraqi intelligence headquarters. Among the documents "found" by the paper's reporters were those that "revealed" that Galloway had solicited hundreds of thousands of dollars from Iraq, funds skimmed from the Oil-for-Food program.

Coleman's committee resurrected the spurious charges against Galloway in its report. Mark L. Greenblatt, the counsel for the committee, relied on new suspicious documents said to have been obtained from the Iraqi Oil Ministry, now run by convicted bank embezzler and disinformation source Ahmad Chalabi.
Never forget that Chalabi's INC ran a shop that specialized in document forgery. As Xymphora points out, the current fake documents were produced in collaboration with the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), a Likudnik group based in Washington, DC.

MEMRI is clearly more than it pretends to be, as this expose in the Guardian demonstrates:

The reason for Memri's air of secrecy becomes clearer when we look at the people behind it. The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon.

Mr - or rather, Colonel - Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin.

Retrieving another now-deleted page from the archives of Memri's website also throws up a list of its staff. Of the six people named, three - including Col Carmon - are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence.
London mayor Ken Livingston has also discussed MEMRI as (in essence) a Mossad cut-out.

Back in November of 2003, Galloway revealed that four members of the U.N. weapons inspection team were actually Mossad spies. Here, no doubt, is the real reason for the smear campaign against this British MP launched by the spooked-up MEMRI, Chalabi, and Coleman.

Brad Friedman reports that Galloway's inflammatory anti-Bush rhetoric was scrubbed from the official website of Coleman's committee. (For the full transcript, try here.) Those who get this story only from cable news aren't getting the story at all.

Coleman has been compared to Joe McCarthy. In fact, he's worse: He reminds me of those lower-level McCarthy wanna-bes (Myron Fagan comes to mind) who spent much of the 1950s waving around bogus lists filled with the names of political adversaries.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

For Your information, Galloway has not successfully fended off charges against him. Far from it. The Charities commission had to curtail investigations because it could not obtain financial details: they had been taken abroad by his partner. And the Telegraph is appealing the libel decision. He has not even begun to address the current allegations, having avoided answering any questions. There are clear and mounting accusations that he used Saddam's money to finance a political campaign. He cannot be said to have fended off these unless he addresses them.
And nothing he says can take away proof that he visibly and verbally supported Saddam, thereby helping to destroy any chance we had of removing the man peacefully. The man is a hypocrite, and a very right wing one at that. Just because the head of the Senate committee might be an arsehole, that doesn't make Galloway an angel.

Nunzia Rider said...

I watched Galloway on CNN, so I'm not sure why you say CNN "refused" to air his condemnation ... plus I heard large portions of his testimony re-aired throughout the day ... including my very favorite part, the "pack of lies" segment.

I agree with your assessment of Coleman though. He is such a weasel, always with that insipid look on his face and the "gee I wish I was Conan O'Brien" hair. Oy. The man's a cretin, and Galloway was fabulous ... whether he turns out to be guilty or not, as anonymous tells us he may well be, doesn't make a whit of difference, because what he said about our Congress was on target.

Anonymous said...

Thoughts on Truth, Justice and George Galloway (1)

The irony of the situation is that he may not be as lily-white as he would have us believe. It does appear that one of his major fundraisers is neck-deep in the Oil for Food scandal. I do believe Galloway was willing to take money from the Devil himself if it would alleviate the suffering our sanctions were visiting upon the dying children of Iraq.

The exchange with Dem. Senator, Carl Levin was unnecessarily confrontational. Senator Penguin wanted a black and white, trap question and Galloway was, I thought, successful at a nuanced response. It almost sounded like Levin had bought into the Republican party line. It is truly a delight to see someone stand up on his hind legs and boldly (and not a little undiplomatically) tell the truth to power.
This is how the Democrats should be responding. They need to add a Galloway chapter to their playbook. It's a pity we no longer have a free press in this country. The corporate press corps remains fearful of offending their masters and apparently they were willing to set aside their own maxim of "If it bleeds, it leads." Ask Minnesota Republican Senator, Norm Coleman what it’s like to be bloodied. I suggest on his next trip to Scotland, he stay away from the Glasgow pubs where Galloway learned his debating style.
I no longer watch the commercial networks, so I was not able to confirm the coverage or lack of same by the big three. I was able to see complete testimony on CNN. A Google news search revealed that the only domestic ink on the subject of the Galloway battering of our benighted Senators came from the London edition of Time. Otherwise there was no lack of coverage from the British Isles, Australia, Europe and the third world press. Most interesting of all, was a wonderful account in the Indian press (2) that compared Galloway’s candid assessment of the lies and crimes of the President and the Congress to Joseph Welsh’s courageous pillorying of “tail-gunner Joe” McCarthy during the famous Army-McCarthy Hearings of 1950.
“Like Galloway yesterday, Welch broke the norm on Capitol Hill and lashed out at the Senator: ‘Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness… Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?’”
That episode began a process that ended McCarthy's career. Would that this current truth telling might have the same impact on President Coo Coo Bananas (3). Sadly, our domesticated press has no interest in disturbing either their masters or the public with such disturbing material.

An interesting sidebar took place when, prior to Galloway’s appearance before the Senate Committee, he was confronted by Mirror correspondent, Christopher Hitchens who’s questions he ignored.
“I should perhaps declare a small bias here: on spotting your own correspondent (Hitchens), Mr Galloway shouted that he was a "drink- sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay and useful idiot", some of which was unfair.” (4)
I wonder which of Galloway’s characterizations he considers fair. I thought he was off the sauce.

All in all, it sounds like a day of wonderful theatre at the Capitol. It’s too bad no one knows it happened. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to report it, does it make a sound? At least there is a blessed part of Heaven where Paul Wellstone is looking down and smiling.

Peace,

Bob Boldt


Notes:

Notes:
(1)Please download the actual Senate Hearings video. Galloway’s testimony occurs about 6 minutes in:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8869.htm

(2) A very good article by the Telegraph of Calcutta. It is ironic that we must be reminded of the important moments in our own history by foreigners:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050519/asp/foreign/story_4759064.asp

(3) From The Wit and Wisdom of Bart Simpson:
In the concluding episode of the Simpsons, after Bart is kicked out of elementary school, his parents enroll him in Catholic school. Homer warns that if Bart is again expelled, he'll be forced to join the Army and be shipped to America's latest military quagmire. "Will it be North Korea? Iran? Anything is possible with Commander Coo-Coo Bananas in charge."

(4) The Hitchens’ piece in the Mirror is strangely restrained, almost laudatory and well worth the read:

18 May 2005
THE YANKS FAIL TO LAY A GLOVE ON GALLOWAY
Christopher Hitchens
As the Senate hearing room was filling up, George Galloway was holding court on the pavement outside and making, I thought, a few mistakes.
A visiting parliamentarian might perhaps avoid the word "lickspittle" when speaking of the distinguished Senator before whose committee he is about to appear.
(I should perhaps declare a small bias here: on spotting your own correspondent, Mr Galloway shouted that he was a "drink- sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay and useful idiot", some of which was unfair.)
However, as the dull hearings proceeded and Galloway waited his turn, the senators began to make blunder after blunder.
They referred repeatedly to a "senior regime member" in custody in Baghdad, who had confirmed all their suspicions, and only yesterday at that. But they didn't care to come up with a name. They droned through material that has already been published.
The member for Bethnal Green and Bow showed the clear superiority of a parliamentary training (and a soapbox training) over a senatorial one. As Americans like to say, he got his retaliation in first. It didn't matter how many times Senator Norm Coleman insisted the sub-committee was not a court, Galloway was outraged that he had only now had the chance to defend himself.
Taking the war to the enemy camp, so to say, he delivered a general indictment of the invasion of Iraq, stressed the pro-Israeli loyalties of the senators, used the word "neo-con" as if he'd been using it all his life, and managed to squeeze in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo for good measure.
They didn't lay much of a glove on him in return. Senator Carl Levin corrected him - he had been an opponent of the war not a supporter - but in the context that sounded rather like a concession.
The real issue, as the documents make clear, is not whether Gorgeous George got money but whether his patron and associate and contributor Fawaz Zureikat was the beneficiary of oil deals and kickbacks.
On this point, Mr Galloway has arranged to be adequately uninformed for some time.
He was no better informed yesterday, and thus deflected all questions on to a person who hasn't yet shown up.
After asking him several times whether he thought the documents were forged or not (and how was he supposed to answer that?) and whether or not he was "troubled" by the idea of a Zureikat kickback (another pointless question), the gentlemen of Capitol Hill called it a day and Galloway was soon outside again, doing what he does best and entertaining the press.

Anonymous said...

More censorship, this time from Charlie Rose???

Have a look at Charlie Rose's website for the schedule of May 17, 2005:

http://www.charlierose.com/thisweek.shtm

There are schedules and brief descriptions of interviews before and after this date but not for the one of the interview with "George Galloway".

Look at his shop site for recent shows:

http://www.charlierose.com/shop/

You can't buy a video of that same program.

Haven't tried to buy a transcript to see if that's available.

Anonymous said...

"I do believe Galloway was willing to take money from the Devil himself if it would alleviate the suffering our sanctions were visiting upon the dying children of Iraq." -- I don't have a problem with that.
LamontCranston

ziz said...

Curious how nobody seems to have picked up on GG's opening words " I am not nor have I ever been..." Every one too young to remember Senator Joe ?

I am informed by people active in Dundee politics, 20 years ago - when the then, Councillor George was twinning Dundee with Gaza and flying the PLO flag over the Town Hall - that he had some very interesting (and prosperous) associates as any thrusting young LABOUR Councillor is entitled to.

I am looking forward to his contribution to Parliamnetary debate now he is free of the shackles of the Labour Party and more certain of his Parliamentary seat.

I recommend his "authorised autobiography".