Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Seagoon on May 12, 2005, 12:49:54 PM
-
Senate Report on Charles Pasqua and George Galloway's Oil for Food Hanky Panky... (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/oilforfood_european_graft_probe.pdf)
A snippet: "CONCLUSION
Despite Galloway’s denials, the evidence obtained by the Subcommittee, including
Hussein-era documents from the Ministry of Oil and testimony from senior Hussein officials,
shows that Iraq granted George Galloway allocations for millions of barrels of oil under the Oil
for Food Program. Moreover, some evidence indicates that Galloway appeared to use a charity
for children’s leukemia to conceal payments associated with at least one such allocation. Lastly,
according to senior Hussein officials, the oil allocations were granted by Iraq because of
Galloway’s support for the Hussein regime and his opposition to U.N. sanctions."
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil
-
The report also points out that Saddam gave large contracts to two or more know terrorist groups.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
The report also points out that Saddam gave large contracts to two or more know terrorist groups.
That cant be true. Everyone with at least 1/4 of a brain knows The Sadman didnt support terrorism in any way. ;)
-
I've only had time to read the first ten pages, but it looks very interesting.
-
This is gonna be good.:aok
-
Originally posted by Elfie
That cant be true. Everyone with at least 1/4 of a brain knows The Sadman didnt support terrorism in any way. ;)
:D He couldn`t possibly have. He was too busy with humanitarian efforts such as capping his family members and the like. ;)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
He gave oil contracts to what? JihadOil Co.? Didn't know there were terrorist oil companies out there. Them terrorists are getting sofisticated.
Did you read the report? He placed people as "gatekeepers" through which the oil had to be purchased through. These people then took a percentage of the sales as commision.
What's so sophisticated about a terrorist acting as a middleman for Saddam?
-
I thought the sadmans only crime was that he was mean to the Bush's and.... his Elvis on black velvet paintings.
lazs
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Did you read the report? He placed people as "gatekeepers" through which the oil had to be purchased through. These people then took a percentage of the sales as commision.
What's so sophisticated about a terrorist acting as a middleman for Saddam?
At the risk of getting hammered... Nuke, any theory that doesn't involve corporate America in some evil is much too sophisticated... ;)
- SEAGOON
-
George was awarded 1.5m in court after the Torygraph made the same allegations.
-
Originally posted by Chortle
George was awarded 1.5m in court after the Torygraph made the same allegations.
Looks like they may have evidence. Records from the Iraqi Oil Ministry, and Iraqi officials.
I wonder if the Torygraph could get their money back should it turn out to be true.
George is a pretty disgusting person, it seems.
-
I don't understand how these "gatekeepers" could have gotten their hands on any money, unless through corrupt officials in the UN.
It's my understand that all money from the oil for food program was held in escrow by the UN.
Edit: NM, I get it now.
-
My money's on Galloway - he's beaten EVERYONE that came up against him - Yanks won't know what hit them.
-
Transcript of Golloway's response can be found here.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1616578,00.html
-
Video of Golloway's response I mean biotch-slapping can be found here. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7883488/)
-
Thanks for posting that link Nash. After viewing that, I can rest assured that he is an idiot regarding the matter of UN sanctions and the state of Iraq.
-
How luscious for you, Nuke. Personally, I don't put very much stock into your interpretation of the UN sanctions nor the state of Iraq. But you're allowed your opinions, for what they're worth.
I'd highly suggest reading the entire transcript (a 3 minute ordeal) that Thrawn posted.
Then maybe you can reconsile this:
"Looks like they may have evidence. Records from the Iraqi Oil Ministry, and Iraqi officials.
I wonder if the Torygraph could get their money back should it turn out to be true.
George is a pretty disgusting person, it seems." - Nuke
....with this:
"Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader. and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one - and neither has anyone on my behalf.
"Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice."
and this:
"Now I want to deal with the pages that relate to me in this dossier and I want to point out areas where there are - let's be charitable and say errors. Then I want to put this in the context where I believe it ought to be. On the very first page of your document about me you assert that I have had 'many meetings' with Saddam Hussein. This is false.
"I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be described as "many meetings" with Saddam Hussein.
"As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defence made of his.
"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce.
"You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do.
"Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from the source is true, that I am 'the owner of a company which has made substantial profits from trading in Iraqi oil'.
"Senator, I do not own any companies, beyond a small company whose entire purpose, whose sole purpose, is to receive the income from my journalistic earnings from my employer, Associated Newspapers, in London. I do not own a company that's been trading in Iraqi oil. And you have no business to carry a quotation, utterly unsubstantiated and false, implying otherwise.
"Now you have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names from Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet government in Baghdad. If you had any of the letters against me that you had against Zhirinovsky, and even Pasqua, they would have been up there in your slideshow for the members of your committee today.
"You have my name on lists provided to you by the Duelfer inquiry, provided to him by the convicted bank robber, and fraudster and conman Ahmed Chalabi who many people to their credit in your country now realise played a decisive role in leading your country into the disaster in Iraq."
Oh jeeze... it turns out I'm quoting him one paragraph after another from the begining of his testimony. Read the rest, or don't... whatev.
I think it's a fascinating process. The posting of some story, the bolstering of the story, the condemnations and then... the most fascinating part... the defense after the story gets debunked. Hell - if it weren't for that there would practically be no AH OC bulletin board.
Someone in this thread, remarking on the upcoming testimony of George Galloway said "This is gonna be good." It certainly was, although I'm not sure this is what he had in mind.
-
Nash, his words are just words at this point.
The things he said about the UN sanctions and the condition of Iraq are funny to me.
-
Funny ha ha? Well good. Nuke is amused. Uhm... whoopty do.
But yes, you're right. His words are just his words (have you read them?). And the words of the Senate report that kicked this whole thread off are also just words.
But to my mind - I would think that the words used to accuse someone of a crime could meet an evidentiary standard that would overcome any words of the defendant whilst defending against them.
Do the Senate report's words meet that test? If so, by all means elucidate for your dear readers.
Or...
Simply say "George is a pretty disgusting person, it seems" and eke out a laugh or two about it somehow.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Funny ha ha? Well good. Nuke is amused. Uhm... whoopty do.
But yes, you're right. His words are just his words (have you read them?). And the words of the Senate report that kicked this whole thread off are also just words.
But to my mind - I would think that the words used to accuse someone of a crime could meet an evidentiary standard that would overcome any words of the defendant whilst defending against them.
Do the Senate report's words meet that test? If so, by all means elucidate for your dear readers.
Or...
Simply say "George is a pretty disgusting person, it seems" and eke out a laugh or two about it somehow.
Yeah, he speaks to the US senate and blames them for UN sanctions, for one. Then he forgets to mention that all of Saddam's killings have ended, thus saving thousands of lives. I guess he'd rather have Saddam in charge. I guess he speaks for Iraqis on this matter.
He then says that the Iraqi people have resisted the occupation, when in reality, only a small minority have resisted.....and they have done so by killing other Iraqis.......the Iraqis who voted and want to be free.
Nash, I know this guy is your hero, but he's not mine. The reason I said he was disgusting was that he constantly supported Saddam.
The report presented to the US senate seemed to have evidence against George, in my opinion.
Now, even though you are facinated by George and his words, let's just wait and see what his words are worth.
Nash, go ahead and take him for his word.........you are doing so blindly.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Yeah, he speaks to the US senate and blames them for UN sanctions, for one.
His thoughts on the sanctions have.... what?... to do with his role in the Oil/Food scandal?
Then he forgets to mention that all of Saddam's killings have ended, thus saving thousands of lives. I guess he'd rather have Saddam in charge. I guess he speaks for Iraqis on this matter.
Making him guilty of having a role in Oil/Food..... how?
He then says that the Iraqi people have resisted the occupation, when in reality, only a small minority have resisted.....and they have done so by killing other Iraqis.......the Iraqis who voted and want to be free.
Which just goes to show how badly this guy got his hands caught in the cooky jar. Er wait - it doesn't.
Nuke... He wasn't there so folks could pick his brain about random thoughts. He was there to defend against the accusations of his role in the Oil/Food scandle(?). You know - what this thread is about? If you feel that strongly otherwise, by all means start a new thread titled "Galloway's blasphemous thoughts on matters relating to things other than the Oil/Food scandle.
The report presented to the US senate seemed to have evidence against George, in my opinion.
"Seemed?"....."In my opinion"? So okay, what in your opinion, are these facts?
-
Originally posted by Nash
His thoughts on the sanctions have.... what?... to do with his role in the Oil/Food scandal?
Making him guilty of having a role in Oil/Food..... how?
Which just goes to show how badly this guy got his hands caught in the cooky jar. Er wait - it doesn't.
Nuke... He wasn't there so folks could pick his brain about random thoughts. He was there to defend against the accusations of his role in the Oil/Food scandle(?). You know - what this thread is about? If you feel that strongly otherwise, by all means start a new thread titled "Galloway's blasphemous thoughts on matters relating to things other than the Oil/Food scandle.
"Seemed?"....."In my opinion"? So okay, what in your opinion, are these facts?
Yeah, I agree. His testimony had nothing to do with his role in the oil for food scandal, which was one of my points. He has an axe to grind....and that he did.
He didn't defend himself very well. He didn't produce any evidence, just his words.
I'll wait to see what the evidence is. You can go ahead and believe his "testimony", I'll waite for the evidense.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Yeah, I agree. His testimony had nothing to do with his role in the oil for food scandal.
Huh?
Slow down.
Just because "he [forgot] to mention that all of Saddam's killings have ended, thus saving thousands of lives", (your take), doesn't mean he forgot to mention anything about his role in Oil/Food.
In fact, he addressed it head on (your gripe with his memory loss about other things that he wasn't there to address nor was asked about aside). The Oil/Food scandal was what he was accused of. That's why he was there. Repeat it if need be.
I find it hysterical that you say "I'll wait to see what the evidence is." Because the evidence SHOULD be in the Senate report that brought this man there to defend against in the first place. So you have it, Nuke.
Yet this guy rebuts it all - point by point (unfortunately for you, leaving out his condemnation of Saddam's brutal dictatorship and other things he didn't mention, wasn't there to mention, and which has no relevance to the charges levied against him).
So again.... You have the evidence (the Senate report), and you have his response. What doesn't stack up? What are you waiting for?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Huh?
I find it hysterical that you say "I'll wait to see what the evidence is." Because the evidence SHOULD be in the Senate report that brought this man there to defend against in the first place. So you have it, Nuke.
Yet this guy rebuts it all - point by point (unfortunately for you, leaving out his condemnation of Saddam's brutal dictatorship and other things he didn't mention, wasn't there to mention, and which has no relevance to the charges levied against him).
So again.... You have the evidence (the Senate report), and you have his response. What doesn't stack up? What are you waiting for?
Nash, you're funny. The Senate may have evidence. This guy just basically said "I didn't do nothing", and you all all over it as if his words of denial are the end all truth.
Too funny.
He ranted against UN sanctions, death, killing, Iraqis and other things which have nothing to do with the accusations against him.....and those are the things you latched onto.
Let's see what the evidence is. I suspect that there is evidence against him for it to reach this point.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Let's see what the evidence is. I suspect that there is evidence against him for it to reach this point.
Priceless, "He must be guilty if he got arrested.".
You sound like a tyranical governments dream citizen.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Priceless, "He must be guilty if he got arrested.".
You sound like a tyranical governments dream citizen.
I didn't say he was guilty.
-
Well, it was actually you who latched onto it. Note your replies about Hussein's rule to my actual quoting of his statement.
And contrary to your demonstrated lack of faith in your elected leaders' (and the powers they wield) ability to thoroughly get to the bottom of a major Oil/Food operation and be able to differentiate that from a private business used to collect checks from journalism work before just going ahead and making the accusation regardless, I guess we will have to wait.... for something?
In otherwords - why didn't the panel simply say "Bull****, Mr. Galloway, because we have records showing....."
They did not. Why? According to you, they could have. It was they, after all, who made those allegations. They, after all, had the evidence.
Because we would both be right in expecting that the allegations were based on something. And I presume that Mr. Galloway could have been reminded of that something in the course of Mr. Galloway's biotch-slapping of them.
What they did instead was to call a recess, dismiss Galloway, then try to forget that the whole ugly incident ever happened.
-
Nash, it seems that he was able to just make a speach without interuption.
This was not a trial. No evidence was presented. George just spewed a bunch of crap that had nothing to do with the hearing, then denied everything. Sorry, I'm not taking his word.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Nash, it seems that he was able to just make a speach without interuption.
This was not a trial. No evidence was presented. George just spewed a bunch of crap that had nothing to do with the hearing, then denied everything. Sorry, I'm not taking his word.
Oh man.
How can you say that "George just spewed a bunch of crap that had nothing to do with the hearing".
How can you say that?
Jesious, Nuke. It's in every gawdamned third sentence he spoke.
And yet, you think he didn't address it, while at the same time blaming him for things that he didn't address involving matters having nothing to do with why he was there.
What's wrong with you?
-
Nuke, just remember that it was the Senate subcommittee that gave him a soapbox to rant on.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Nuke, just remember that it was the Senate subcommittee that gave him a soapbox to rant on.
Best headline I heard about it is:
"Empty Suit Politician Walks into Propellor."
:D
-
"Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice."
"As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defence made of his.
I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce.
"You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do.
"Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from the source is true, that I am 'the owner of a company which has made substantial profits from trading in Iraqi oil'.
That's some real powerful testimony, Nash. Just a windbag. we'll see how his "evidence" holds up.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
we'll see how his "evidence" holds up.
Heh.... "We'll see how the evidence holds up."
You slay me.
You didn't need the evidence to hold up in order to tag him as a "terrorist acting as a middleman for Saddam" did you?
Did you?
But now that this "terrorist" responds to the so-called evidence, you need to wait until HIS evidence undergoes scrutiny?
The best was you responding to the Senate report by saying: "I've only had time to read the first ten pages, but it looks very interesting." You do slay me Nuke.
Forget you.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Heh.... "We'll see how the evidence holds up."
You slay me.
You didn't need the evidence to hold up in order to tag him as a "terrorist acting as a middleman for Saddam" did you?
Did you?
But now that this "terrorist" responds to the so-called evidence, you need to wait until HIS evidence undergoes scrutiny?
The best was you responding to the Senate report by saying: "I've only had time to read the first ten pages, but it looks very interesting." You do slay me Nuke.
Forget you.
I never said George was a terrorist acting as a middleman for Saddam. Plus, his words are not "evidence"
And at the time, I had only read the first 10 pages. I made no judgment. Since then, I have read the entire report.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I never said George was a terrorist acting as a middleman for Saddam. Plus, his words are not "evidence"
Oh bull...
The posts are still up there for anyone confused about the train of thought and where your post fit in and to whom it refered.
And no - his words are not evidence. The Senate reports words SHOULD contain some - no?.
Yet you accept the reports', and despite your claim now to the contrary say (about Galloway) "we'll see how his "evidence" holds up.
How can his evidence hold up if it is not evidence?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Oh bull...
The posts are still up there for anyone confused about the train of thought and where your post fit in and to whom it refered to.
I never said George was a middleman for Saddam. Care to take a bet?
-
[edited my post above]
-
Originally posted by Nash
And no - his words are not evidence. The Senate reports words SHOULD contain some - no?.
The thing is, how do you know that the Senate reports do not have evidence? You jumped all over this dipchit's words and took them as truth.
I'm saying let the evidence be heard.
-
It was, Nuke.
The evidence was heard. Today.
Investigated? We'll see. I would have hoped that an investigation ruling out any of Galloway's biotch-slapping would have taken place before the accusation was made and Galloway's appearence in front of the Senate, but you can't have everything.
How about the evidence being backed up? No - that didn't happen.
I'll patiently await the arrival of word that Galloway's one-man company turned him into an oil tycoon. But I won't hold my breath.
I won't hold it long enough to find out that Galloway was indeed a terrorist oil tycoon, nor will I hold it awaiting your acceptance of the truth, no matter its content. It would be a stupid thing to do, and I would die. Because you never would.
I reckon you would have liked it back in teh olden days.
-
Originally posted by Nash
It was, Nuke.
The evidence was heard. Today.
No evidence was presented, only testimony.
You think that talking is evidence?
I'll be happy to waite for the evidence.
-
It's funny to me that the Senate, upon accusing someone, should not be expected to present evidence, and that the burdon fell to the accused.
I'm still not forgetting the obvious here - you didn't need evidence by the accuser in order to come to your conclusion before today, and after today, it's suddenly required of the accused.
Ciao.
-
The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation....
..A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them...
..The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.
In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.
"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales..
Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html)
I am truly shocked.
Really I am.
:lol
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Can Galloway sue the US government?
And btw. NUKE is an oil stealing, kiddie porn watching, prisoner sodomizing war criminal! ... Oh, did I just make a totally unsubstantiated accusation? How American of me.
(Disclaimer: Not that all Americans make unsubstantiated accusations, just the majority of the neo-cons in this forum.)
If at all possible he will - last time he was accused of something he took the owner of the very right wing Telegraph paper for $3.00 million - I don't think he's ever lost a libel suit, he's taken on the Labour Party, Tony Blair, he fought a campaign vs a labour politician - Oona King in a very black, very (up till now) Labour constituency - where ms King had an majority of over 10,000 vote and won.
I personally don't agree with everything the guy says but he's very bright, very tough and does not lose.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I'm still not forgetting the obvious here - you didn't need evidence by the accuser in order to come to your conclusion before today, and after today, it's suddenly required of the accused.
Ciao.
I never once came to a conclusion about this guy's guilt or innocence. I said the report seemed interesting. I also said the guy seems like a disgusting person.
I said it seems like they might have evidence against him.
Nash, you are the one who had an orgasm after the guy spewed a bunch of garbage about the UN sanctions, the evil US and how he was right about everything in Iraq.......all of which has nothing to do with the oil for food scandal.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I never once came to a conclusion about this guy's guilt or innocence. I said the report seemed interesting. I also said the guy seems like a disgusting person.
I said it seems like they might have evidence against him.
Nash, you are the one who had an orgasm after the guy spewed a bunch of garbage about the UN sanctions, the evil US and how he was right about everything in Iraq.......all of which has nothing to do with the oil for food scandal.
Okay, in your world you never pronounced him guilty (as if that means anything), you basically only said that he seems guilty. A not so subtle distinction not so lost on me.
And Nuke - you are the one going batchit about all this other stuff (sanctions/Iraq state of affairs). I can point out how repeatedly in this thread you will not let these things drop; can you do the same for mine?
He was there to talk about the Oil/Food scandle. He addressed those issues. You overlook them and fixatedly talk about this other stuff, then say I'm the one doing it? I don't think so buddy.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Okay, in your world you never pronounced him guilty (as if that means anything), you basically only said that he seems guilty. A not so subtle distinction not so lost on me.
And Nuke - you are the one going batchit about all this other stuff (sanctions/Iraq state of affairs). I can point out how repeatedly in this thread you will not let these things drop; can you do the same for mine?
He was there to talk about the Oil/Food scandle. He addressed those issues. You overlook them and fixatedly talk about this other stuff, then say I'm the one doing it? I don't think so buddy.
Wrong again. I didn't say he seemed guilty either. I said it seems like they might have evidence, because they claim in the report that they do.
Nash, your post with the video was what I was refering to when I said Thanks for posting that link Nash. After viewing that, I can rest assured that he is an idiot regarding the matter of UN sanctions and the state of Iraq.
Again, I'll say the guy is an idiot on those matters. He explained how the US senate ( not the UN) was responsible for millions of deaths, mostly children.
Yeah, right. Saddam had nothing to do with any of it. I hate people with his attitude.
As far as the hearing, I'm willing to wait for it to all pan out. You want to jump up and down with glee like the guy just "schooled" the Senate, go right ahead.
-
Yeah. I am jupping up and down with glee.
I'd love to chat more, but deadlines loom.
-
I do give the guy a lot of credit for agreeing to testify under oath to the US senate. He didn't have to do that and it's shows a lot confidence on his part.
If he's being set up or falsely accused, then I'd like to see justice done on his behalf.
If it turns out that he is guilty, I'd like him nailed to the cross.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html)
I am truly shocked.
Really I am.
:lol
Wow! Clearly we need to investigate this Galloway chap abit more!
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html)
I am truly shocked.
Really I am.
:lol
the shock and horror...