Galloway and Other Liberals Lie to Slander Iraq War
Sunday, July 22, 2007 at 07:52PM Bottom Line Up Front: How does the left win a war? They don’t, they lie to thwart victory.
George Galloway, a prominent opponent of the Iraq war and member of the British Parliament, is to be suspended from the Commons after being found guilty of not disclosing his links with Saddam Hussein’s regime.
According to the Parliament, the United Nations’ discredited oil-for-food program was used by the Iraqi government with Mr Galloway’s connivance, to fund the Mariam Appeal he set up partly to campaign against sanctions imposed on Iraq.
The UN oil-for-food programme was set up to allow Saddam to sell Iraqi oil to buy humanitarian supplies, but he corruptly awarded oil contracts to politicians and businessmen around the world..
In 1998, Galloway founded the Mariam Appeal, which campaigned for the lifting of sanctions on Iraq. The appeal, which paid Galloway’s wife and funded international travel for Galloway, received almost £450,000 from Fawaz Zureikat, a Jordanian businessman who was also a trustee of the appeal. It subsequently emerged that more than half of this money came from the proceeds of Iraqi oil sales. An investigation by the American Senate alleged that the Mariam Appeal was used by the Iraqi regime to finance Galloway.
George Galloway personally thanked Saddam Hussein for his regime’s financial backing in a campaign against sanctions on Iraq, and even asked him to raise the payments, according to a House of Commons report.
He also offered to help to set up an Iraqi satellite television channel in collaboration with Saddam, broadcasting in English, months before the war began.
In August 2002, Mr Galloway praised Tariq Aziz, Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister, who also attended, for helping to secure his financial backing.
An account of their meeting, published for the first time in a Commons report into Mr Galloway’s failure to declare his financial backers, contradicts the MP’s repeated insistence that he was unaware of receiving money from the former Iraqi regime.
Mr Galloway, addressing Saddam as “Your Excellency”, tells him: “Mr Tariq Aziz has helped us with his contacts … But we are now suffering from the problem of the price of oil, which has resulted in a reduction in our income and delay in receiving our dues.”
In other words, George Galloway had reason to support Saddam Hussein and attack the Bush adminstiration for the war: he was getting rich from the corrupt Oil for Food program by Saddam Hussein. The revelation has earned Galloway an 18 day suspension from the House of Commons.
Keeping in tradition with a long line of egotistical liberal politicians across the globe, Galloway offered no apologies but stated “I deserve a medal, not a ban, for Iraq”. Ho-LY Cow.
Then there’s the fake diary at liberal The New Republic in which the series ”Shock Troops” is used as a propaganda piece against our troops. Passed off as real, Shock Troops is authored by Scott Thomas, a “pseudonym for a soldier currently serving in Baghdad” and author of two previous dispatches from Iraq for the New Republic, both of which recount deeply disturbing anecdotes.
Turns out the diary series is bogus.
From the offset, Shock Troops reeked of Jesse MacBethisms. Remember fake Ranger Jesse MacBeth? Or Amorita Randall? Or Josh Lansdale?
The commander of the unit in Baghdad refuted the false allegations against his troops.
Another soldier from the unit slammed the bogus account as well on BlackFive.
Meanwhile, The New Republic is standing by it’s story.
Essentially liberals have painted themselves into a corner and their only recourse is to lie OR support the mission and the death of millions of Iraqis is preferable to them than that.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1161753
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to FriendReferences (1)
-
Response: Amy Proctor RulesAs does Michelle Malkin and countless others! Most of them are in my blogrolls or other listings in the sidebars.This
Reader Comments (26)
Oh this is soooooooooooooooooooooooooo true and sooooooooooooo getting blogged...again!!
Simply amazing. I have forgotten how many times I have mentioned that the Leftinistra will be painting themselves into a corner of which they cannot get out of without at least leaving a trail of slug goo.
GREAT post and thanks for the visit!!
I have a post somewhere about fraud veterans and this DAV's skin crawls whenever I hear of them.
If you could add me to your blogroll I would deeply appreciate it.
I thought I had added you, Snooper. I'll do so tomorrow.
Can Galloway be any more obvious? Now he's flailing like like little girl who's been caught her hand in the cookie jar. He's all about theater and cover up while accusing the Bush administration of lying.
I cannot believe lightening doesn't strike these people.
could youplease post a source for the above story, Galloway actually got rich from sueing people like you.
What?
The source is the British House of Commons. The Parliament. You can read the indictments at the House of Commons. I linked to it in the story.
I'm not sure where Galloway got his wealth but part of it definitely came from the U.N. Oil for Food program compliments of Saddam.
By the way, can you post a source to the allegation that Galloway got rick from suing people like me?
Hello again Amy,
Been awhile. New Computer so I can see your site now! Still slow loading even with 2G RAM and Dual Processors with L2 cache. Not sure anyone else is having problems, but the Video Feed you use is the source of the problem - I think. My old computer just tanked. There may be other users hitting your site and not getting in. This time, it just took longer to load. Don't have this problem with any other site.
Is no one else experiencing this problem with your site?
Anyway, good to see you're still doing a great job! Now I can vist and see for myself :)
I thought this was current news,but nothing has happened, no action has been taken, as it turns out this post is actually a sad indictment of how desperate this war and your site has become.
MP George Galloway won £150000 in libel damages over claims he was paid by Saddam Hussein.
Speaking outside Parliament after the announcement, he said the commissioner had noted six times that "I did not benefit personally by a single penny from Iraq, from the oil-for-food programme or from any other Iraqi source".
The fact was that Galloway’s charitable organisation only received a ½ million pounds in donation over the years since 1998, all the money and those who gave it were named, it was not a lot of money and it was all used to supply humanitarian aid while Iraq was being starved by sanctions.
If you’re after old stories, I’ve got heaps
I wonder how much US companies were paid by Saddam to provide the gas for Kurds?
oh yes, and it was known what the gas was to be used for.
Can you run a story on how America benefited from installing Saddam as president of Iraq in the first place or why we supported Iraq during the Iran Iraq war?
Run the picture with Rummy and Saddam sharing a joke, its always a laugh.
Could you tell us how much Australia paid Saddam to secure wheat exports? And please tell us how John Howard or any of the responsible were punished.
At the tail end of the post there’s unrelated spew about disgruntled soldiers, apparently fake? they are all happy?
Would you run the stories about the footballer who died from friendly fire in Afghanistan a while ago, you remember, the hero story that turned out to be fake or tell the one about the pretty soldier who was rescued after her convoy got lost.
When will they make the film
BLUF your way through it all amy, Fair. Balanced .believable...not
Hey Amy, I don't mean to change the subject of this thread, but have you seen this yet?
http://www.floppingaces.net/?p=1662
I have to agree, this blog seems to be getting more and more desperate for some "shocking ", not well-researched, taken out of all context news that might deflect from what is happening elsewhere (how about congress...). Add the "HoLY Cows" and other subjective interjections and comments to try and sway on emotional grounds rather than on the intellectual, and you may as well throw credibility out the window once and for all.
Bad writing + a small,closed community of thought + a person who has too much time on her hands, and is seeking a desperately constructed and manipulated forum for her views = this blog.
I can't believe it doesn't get struck by lightning (or a bit of lightening (sic)?)
Of course the real problem isn't Galloway, or Cindy Sheehan, or ________ fill in the blank. The real problem is that the American people no longer support the war. But it will always be easier to attack the fringes of the movement than the center.
Simon, I've been over this before, but Galloway was cutting deals with Saddam on the backs of the Iraqi people for his own benefit. Donald Rumsfeld made the U.S.'s first official heads of state visit to Iraq after Saddam came to power knowing that Iraq was an enemy of Iran. Months after the initial meeting the U.S. learned of Saddam's trickery and nuclear aspirations, alienating us from them. This is how nations deal diplomatically with each other. We had to meet with the new leader Saddam to assess his motives, intent and whether he would be an ally or foe.
It's a shame people like you try to spin a diplomatic meeting into something sinister, but that's what you guys do best: appeal to the stupidest among us.
simon, erasmus, I'm just reporting the facts. The House of Commons censured Galloway, who was kicked out of the Labor party, because of his relationship with Saddam. That's not spin.
Amy stands by her words....
"In other words, George Galloway had reason to support Saddam Hussein and attack the Bush adminstiration for the war: he was getting rich from the corrupt Oil for Food program by Saddam Hussein. The revelation has earned Galloway an 18 day suspension from the House of Commons".
...and after becoming dizzy with her own desperate spin she
fell over.
“he was getting rich from the corrupt Oil for Food program [ Pakistan magazines & south Asian enterprises, propaganda editorials in Islam, etc…] by Saddam Hussein” -- Typical 20th century European businessman – hands all over the Middle East. Scots should disown him.
Poor simon can't repute the facts so he fails at an attempt of humor. Better luck next time.
the facts according to Fox and CNN - how much spin can one person swallow without throwing up -
read some European newspapers, or anything foreign, to get a bit of distance from US TV and to learn to think
It was your facts that failed you Amy, George did not benefit either politically or financially from his efforts to help the people of Iraq, but you have continued to lie.
Thats not funny, its stupid
Its old news Amy, used unsuccessfully by supporters of war to silence Galloway and resubmitted by you here to support the ongoing deception. The accusations against Galloway were proven to be groundless and Galloway was proven innocent in court and he has since been compensated, all on the public record. Galloway remains innocent free and able to hold office, The action taken by parliment had nothing to do with the points you made in the post.
You either did this on purpose or out of ignorance.
You are now lying to cover up the fact you are embarrassed, stop digging a bigger hole Amy, no one really cares.
B L U F: How does the left win a war? They don’t, they lie to thwart victory.
How does the right win wars?
They don’t, they just lie to disguise the loss.
once defeated they will blame the loss on a lack of support rather than stand up to those who planned the impossible mission.
simon, please do tell. What lies in particular are you referring to? Usually libs can only rhetorically refer to such "lies" because as a matter of public record none exist.
Are you blaming GEN Petraeus or GEN Casey for the mission then? A smart guy like you must know that the Commander in Chief doesn't plan the war per se, he gathers intel from commanders who run the war and authorizes it.
Here's an idea, how about blaming the terrorists, al-Qaeda and insurgents for the way the war is going. Here's a novel idea: blame Saddam for giving the finger to the international community for so many years, for trying to assassinate Bush Sr. in Kuwait in 1994, for trying to shoot down U.S. planes over the No Fly Zone.... nah, that was Bush Jr's fault, too.
It's not a mission impossible. Bill Clinton categorically denied that the war was impossible:
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998:
As I recall, Clinton was a Democratic President. And he was absolutley correct.
If you're gaging success or failure by the fact that there is violence in war, I'd suggest you take up a hobby and leave the topic to people who are better informed.
erasmus advised:
The source of the Galloway story IS European, not American. It is a matter of discipline from the House of Commons in London reported in the UK Times, etc.
As for your critique of this blog, I don't care what your opinion is (I wouldn't expect it to be anything other than what you described), but your ignorance runs amok if you think I have too much time on my hands. Just because you cannot argue against fact doesn't mean it's smart to throw spears.
And let me guess, you think Daily KOS isn't opinionated or spinning, right?
Amy writes.
, "please do tell. What lies in particular are you referring to?"
I ask
Which of the lies don't you want to hear?
Your lies or the republicans, or both?
Starting with the above post, will you admit to lying?
You wrote the following,
"In other words, George Galloway had reason to support Saddam Hussein and attack the Bush administration for the war: he was getting rich from the corrupt Oil for Food program by Saddam Hussein. The revelation has earned Galloway an 18 day suspension from the House of Commons".
This statement is a blatant lie compounded by the fact that you had prior knowledge that money was not the motivation behind the parliamentary suspension, I'd like to know why you lied or even if you’re aware of lying.
Has lying become a right wing habit?
How about an answer?
That's all you got, simon? "You lied, you lying liar"? That's it?
I never said the money was the motivation, although Galloway did ask Saddam for an increase in donation (as noted by the House of Commons investigation). I think the money sweetened the pot for Galloway's support. Imagine Saddam having an MP (Ministry of the Parliament) lobbying in support of Saddam's interest! Pretty impressive.
My personal belief is that Galloway's motive is that he's an anti-war FREAK who puts his warped ideology above common sense and his country like the anti-war Democrats we have in DC.
All you said was "This statement is a blatant lie" but you didn't say how. Your answer looks foolish. Direct your hostility to the House of Commons who did the investigation. What is truly pathetic is your desire to defend a man who clearly supported Saddam Hussein in many avenues even above the interests of his own country rather than admit it could be true.
I'm just relaying the facts of an investigation. Don't shoot the messenger, pal.
Simon,
How blind can you be?
1)