Galloway tells of meeting with Siniora
Galloway is very funny relating his meeting with Siniora. I won't spoil it by telling you the punchline.
tag: George Galloway, Siniora, Lebanon
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe to my feed
Search Osterley Times or the Web
Tortured.
Click on picture to buy.
Obama '08
Awards
third Iraq Moratorium
War Child
Bloggers Against Torture
Out of Iraq Blogroll
Amnesty International
Get Involved
Site Meter
Web Stats
License
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.
"Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a perceived increase in security, deserve neither - and will eventually lose both." Benjamin Franklin.
| Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left Ring Owner: Thomas Knapp Site: Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left |
by Bravenet.com
63 comments:
George far prefers his meetings with cash rich murderers.
And Siniora didn't fight a war
That's actually correct. Siniora did not fight a war, Hizbullah did. Siniora simply had to watch as Bush gave Olmert permission to level his cities.
And today has seen the first shots fired in Hezballahs attempt to start a civil war.
Maybe thats what Siniora meant by the Lebanese losing.
Not as odd as the fact that some on the left support an Iranian proxy anti semitic Fascist movement in South Lebanon.
I've never said I support anyone in Southern Lebanon. I have said that Bush's support for both Siniora and the Israeli invasion have damaged Siniora.
I was referring to Galloways "glorification" of the blackshirts.
http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/hezbollah_salute.jpg
Is it "glorification" to state the obvious and say that Hizbullah won?
"I glorify the Hizbollah national resistance movement, and I glorify the leader of Hizbollah, Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah."
G.Galloway
I'll accept that George did glorify Hizbullah.
However, in fairness, you do realise that Europe does not share the American view that Hizbullah is a terrorist organisation, don't you?
Well, as they were formed in response to Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon it would be surprising if they were pro-Israeli. However, it doesn't naturally follow that being anti-Israeli (who were after all the people who had invaded and occupied their country) means that they are anti-Jewish, which is my reading of anti-Semitic.
Indeed, according to the Wikepedia site (which I admit is not the most reliable site as it is made up by it's contributors) Hezbollah's official web site marks a distinction between "Zionist ideology" and Judaism.
Which means they are anti-Zionist rather than anti-Semitic. Many Jews and Americans are also anti-Zionist. That does not make them anti-Semitic.
I also have trouble with your claim that they are a Fascist organisation. On what do you base that claim? Or are you meaning they are part of what the Bush crowd would call the "Islamofascists"?
A neologism that many of us regard as essentially meaningless.
Nasrallah
If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide. (Daily Star, Oct. 23, 2002)
If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli. (New Yorker, Oct. 14, 2002)
As for Fascist?
All Political,Economic,Military and Religious power in the hands of one unelected leader.
Kel,
Thanks for the video, although I am not a fan of Galloway, I do appreciate this video. It tells a lot about Siniora.
Anonymous,
The reference you made about hezbollah are zionist and neo-con fabrications that have been circulating the wen for quite a while now.
Check Jews Sans Frontières on this
it is obvious he is pandering to his electoral base ( disgruntled british muslims ), who enjoy this type of rhetoric
anyway , anyone who accepted saddam's blood money, is not trustworthy. He is proabaly on syria/iran payroll now,
cheers
Hardly disproves Nasrallahs statements
"Anonymous"
Galloway is looking for Oil Cash in Venezuala.
Not Iran
Sophia,
I regard Galloway as mostly good fun. He pompous but I don't find myself disliking him.
Anonymous, much as Galloway behaves in an oafish fashion, no proof has ever been found to link him to oil money. And, as there seems to be two of you currently posting anonymously, do you fancy taking the time to acquire a name?
Kel,
Three UK citizens spent Oil For Food money.
G.Galloway MP £600,000 through the Mariam Appeal bank account.
G.Galloways wife $120,000 through her personal account.
Ron McKay.(G.Galloways press spokesman) $15,666 through his personal account.
You must believe this is a coincidence.
Galloway has sued every time anyone has ever said he took money from the Oil for Food programme and has, to my knowledge, won every single case.
I know there are recent allegations from Norm Coleman that he had given false "or misleading" testimony under oath when appearing before them, but Galloway has challenged Coleman to charge him with perjury, which Coleman has so far failed to do.
Galloway has also said his wife denied receiving any money.
I suddenly find myself in the bizarre position of defending George Galloway, but I do think there should be some standard of proof before we believe every allegation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway#_note-74
Its one hell of a coincidence.
3 bank accounts fill up.
Galloways appeal.Galloways Wife.Galloways Press spokesman.
read the denials very carefully Kel.
As I say, Galloway has sued and won every time anyone has said he has received money from the Oil for Food programme.
You simply stating that this money is in his bank account is not proof that it is.
Don't be silly.
The Telegraph case didn't look at whether George spent the cash.
They used the Reynolds Defence.
Chain of events.
George nominated Zureikat as the Mariam Appeal agent.
Zureikat does Oil deals.
Money transferred from Zureikats Oil trading account to Mariam Appeal (plus wife.plus Ron)
George & Co spend cash.
George than sends the accounts of the Mariam Appeal to Zureikat when they go missing.
From Wikepedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariam_Appeal
"The Mariam Appeal was investigated by the Charity Commission even though the Commission's authority extends only to England and Wales. The Appeal was established in Scotland, and was never a registered charity and never intended to be such. The report of this year-long inquiry was published in June 2004. It opened up the Mariam Appeal's bank account and revealed that the major funders to be the United Arab Emirates, a donor from Saudi Arabia and the Jordanian businessman Fawaz Zureikat (later alleged to be implicated in the Oil-for-Food Programme scandal).
The Charity Commission found that the Mariam Appeal had done charitable work and raised significant funds, so should have registered with them and published accounts, taking the view that the legal advice the Appeal founders had taken that the constitution did not create a charity was wrong. It established that Dr. Amineh Abu-Zayyad (a Muslim Palestinian, who became Galloway's wife from 2000 to 2005) and Stuart Halford, two of the original trustees, had received unauthorised benefits in the form of salary payments from the Appeal’s funds, although the executive committee considered these payments necessary and were unaware that they were unauthorised.
The Charity Commission did not find other evidence to support the allegations that funds had been misused."
And it was the Telegraph who used the Reynolds defence (not Galloway) by which I mean they did not even attempt to claim that what they printed was true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway#Daily_Telegraph
Instead, the paper sought to argue that it acted responsibly because the allegations it reported were of sufficient public interest to outweigh the damage caused to Galloway's reputation.
However, the court ruled that, "It was the defendants' primary case that their coverage was no more than 'neutral reportage' ... but the nature, content and tone of their coverage cannot be so described.
It is also interesting that the Telegraph chose not to appeal.
The Charity Commission has reopened its investigation.
All they were able to look at was bank statements, and they did not examine money in.
"the earlier inquiry had been limited as key papers were sent to Jordan".
Galloway is yet to produce the accounts.
Galloway is yet to produce the accounts.
Shouldn't you wait until he has produced them before you declare his guilt? Especially as two court cases have previously found him innocent?
As you know the court cases didn't examine the Oil for Food money trail.
Galloway will never produce the accounts.He promised to 3 years ago, but lied.
They disappeared on purpose.
I'm frankly amazed that reserve such hatred for Galloway who you merely suspect of having taken money from that source, rather than the myriad of American companies that we know for a fact were bribing Saddam to get to the oil.
Why does Galloway get you so incensed, yet the US companies that were bribing Saddam do not?
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/27792/
Because he has pretended to be a man of the left while sucking up to dictators.
His love of cash that is not his own goes from Dundee,through War on Want,Asian Voice and finally to the Oil for Food Corruption.
(including carrying cash for Al Queda associates in London.)
Actually, I think you're wrong there.
From his appearance before the US Senate Committee:
"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 Defense 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.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0517-35.htm
It was at one of those two meetings that he made the infamous comments that many take, wrongly, to mean that he supported Saddam.
dont be silly.
Galloways speech absolutley praised Saddam.
The guy eve used to refer to Uday Hussein as "Your Excellency"
And as for not supporting the Ba'athists.
How come George campaigned for the Iraqi Air force to be allowed to fly over Halabja again.
(using stolen money)
Galloway was against Saddam. He spoke to him nicely because that's what you do when you're trying to get someone to do something.
I'm sorry that your prejudice has blinded you on this matter. You seem to have decided the truth in your own mind and facts won't budge you.
Uday Hussein was well known as a murderer and torturer.not "your excellency"
So why did he campaign for the No fly zone over Kurdistan to be lifted?
Why make 100 trips to Baghdad (none to the north or south,note)
including xmas with Tariq Aziz.
(Oddly Zureikat was also there that boxing day.Three months before the oil cash started to flow)
So funny :)
so you wanted the Ba'athist air force flying over Halabja.
Uday Hussein had no title or position.
Except to grovellers.
And of course you know Saddam could have had the sanctions lifted whenever he wanted.
This concept might seem strange to you, but I prefer a world where international law applies, not a world where the US get to state what they think international law should be and then act accordingly.
And the sanctions could only be lifted if Saddam destroyed WMD. We all now know that he didn't have WMD and even if had made a pile of them a mile high and set them alight, the US would have said that he was bluffing and that he had more. The real reason - nay, the only reason - for the sanctions was to force Saddam from office. If you are pretending that you don't know that, then you are being disingenuous. Or naive in the extreme.
Why did Saddam hinder the weapons inspectors?
PS.
The Lancet Study which I believe you have quoted,assumes one of the lowest infant mortality rates in world history.
Oh.
And I see you believe the Halabja gassings were legal?
Or does there illegality not count.
I see you've dropped the Uday grovelling.
We know of course that Galloway never strayed from Baghdad to see the ki8lling fields.And its too late now as he can never visit Iraq again.
I never said the Halabja gassings were legal, they most certainly were illegal.
The problem was that when Saddam committed that monstrous act he was our monster so we didn't really object. Indeed, the stories of Iraq gassing Iranians had been prevalent as early as 1984, though the US government merely "censured" Iraq whilst sending Rumsfeld to assure Saddam that the Reagan regime's desire for the normalisation of diplomatic relations was “undiminished”. Reagan certainly did not place Saddam back on the official American list of state sponsors of terrorism from where he had removed him in 1982.
You appear to have a very short memory. And a highly selective one.
I also notice that you have applied the same logic to me that you apply to Galloway, where people assume guilt according to your notion of what they should and shouldn't say in response to a given situation.
Allow me to be more specific. I would have had no objection to invading Iraq after Halabja as that was a clear violation of international law that allowed us to intervene to prevent a further massacre. Reagan didn't do it because Saddam was his man.
My objection to Bush bringing up Halabja some fifteen years later was that it was (a) deeply hypocritical given the actions at the time of an administration in which his own father was Vice President and (b) irrelevant unless we had cause to believe Saddam was about to repeat the crime again, which would have been the only legal way for us to intervene. We had no such cause because he had no such weapons.
And Galloway - who always talks in a ridiculously pompous manner - calling Uday "Excellency" means bugger all. You can't seriously say he supported Saddam because he was pompous when in front of him. Galloway is always pompous.
But I see that unless he addressed Uday as, "Good evening you murderous bastard", you feel that he was almost performing oral sex on the guy.
Your position on this is simply ridiculous.
You condemn Galloway and say bugger all about Reagan who was actually in a position to do something about this atrocity.
I agree with everything you say about Reagan.
And Halabja.
I am very glad that the Iraqi Air Force was prevented from flying over the Kurdish North and Shia south.
Aren't you?
Galloway campaigned for access (using defrauded money) and as such became an ally of the Ba'athists, along with some other politicians also on the take.
On the subject of US policy, I strongly opposed the appeasement in Bosnia and supported the illegal war in Kosovo.
Galloway of course wanted Kosovo to be left to Arkan and Milosevic.
At least there was no cash involved.
And by the way,on the subject of Galloway fawning in front of Uday Hussein.
Why was he meeting this rapist torturer at all?
Let alone doing his Unity Mitford impression.
I agree with everything you say about Reagan.
And Halabja.
No, you don't. If you did you wouldn't be wasting your time on arseholes like Galloway.
And I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I believe in international law so, no, I didn't celebrate the fact that Saddam couldn't fly over the Kurdish north and Shiah south as the no-fly zones were illegal.
I would, however, have supported any action we might have taken should Saddam have done anything in either of those areas to his own citizens.
And I have no idea why Galloway met Uday and really couldn't care less. It wasn't a crime and - in terms of world affairs - it seems to be important only to people like you.
And Kosovo was legal.
Intervention is permitted as an exceptional measure to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe.
Nice try, buddy.
Intervention is permitted as an exceptional measure to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe.
Yep.
Like stopping the Ba'athist air force flying over areas it had bombed.
And on the subject of Galloway you have to ask yourself why decent men like Robin Cook would have nothing to do with him.
In order for that to be true you would have to prove imminence. What proof do you have that Saddam, after his initial attack, intended to repeat this attack against the Kurds in the north or the Shias in the south?
The fact that he had attacked the Kurds previously is NOT proof that he is about to do so again.
Indeed, at the time of the illegal invasion he hadn't attacked them for decades.
The intervention permitted "as an exceptional measure to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe" demands that the humanitarian catastrophe should be actually taking place. It is an "exceptional measure". It can't be invoked because you think it might take place.
So, I repeat, what proof do you have that Saddam, after the first Gulf war, intended to attack the Kurds in the north or the Shias in the south?
And Robin Cook was a brilliant man whose views I totally agreed with on the Iraq war. He had nothing to do with Galloway? Good for him. I have nothing to do with Galloway.
I simply believe that all people are innocent until found guilty by a jury of their peers.
I am sorry that you don't acknowledge that basic tenet of law.
I simply believe that all people are innocent until found guilty by a jury of their peers.
An argument that strangely doen't apply when accusing Blair of acting illegally.
Bu does when Galloway and his wife have a cash trail from the Oil for Food corruption to their spending money.
An argument that strangely doen't apply when accusing Blair of acting illegally.
The illegality of Blair's actions are clear for all to see. Even Kofi Annan has called the war illegal.
If Galloway's "crimes" were as clear you wouldn't need to rely on an idiotic argument like how he addressed Uday.
The illegality of Blair's actions are clear for all to see. Even Kofi Annan has called the war illegal.
Opinions.Opinions.
I simply believe that all people are innocent until found guilty by a jury of their peers.
It seems you dont.
Check the bank transfers to Galloways appeal and Galloways wife.
Facts.
It's not an opinion. The war was not sanctioned by United Nations. They went ahead after they failed to get the second resolution. That makes it illegal. That is a fact.
Of course its only opinion.
Not a jury.
Or a money transfer.
The war was not sanctioned by United Nations.
Neither was Kosovo.
And in your opinion that was legal.
Opinions.
The war was not sanctioned by United Nations.
Neither was Kosovo.
And in your opinion that was legal.
I've already stated that the exception to requiring UN approval is where intervention is "as an exceptional measure to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe".
Do try to keep up.
You're beginning to act like a troll. I might stop feeding you soon.
By the way, you do realise that anything libelous you say on here is a form of publication and that you could be liable to prosecution should Galloway decide to sue you? As Mr Galloway has twice won in the courts, I think it's only fair to bring that to your attention.
Perfectly aware.
George isnt suing anyone.
Documentary evidence showing that Fawaz Zureikat transferred $150,000 to the Jordanian bank account of Galloway's wife, and $340,000 to the London bank account of the Mariam Appeal after receiving commissions from Taurus Petroleum and Delta Services Ltd for oil deals. Some of this money must have come from Zureikat's oil commissions:
His account had a balance of $524.45 when he received $69,975 from Delta Services Ltd. Delta Services Ltd had received a payment of $119,000 from Fortum Oil and Gas, a commission to Dr. Burhan Al-Chalabi who acted as an agent for oil allocations on behalf of Zureikat/Galloway. $70,000 (minus a $25 transaction fee) was then transferred to Zureikat, giving him at the time a balance of $70,499.45. The transfer to Zureikat happened on July 4, 2000.
Zureikat's next transaction was to make a cash deposit on July 13, 2000 of $47,491. The source of these funds is not determined. This gave him a balance of $117,990.45, with $69,975 of that coming from oil commissions.
On July 27, 2000, the next transaction in Zureikat's account was a transfer from Taurus Petroleum in the amount of $740,000 which was his commission for the sale of the oil allocation given to him through Galloway. His balance was now $857,990.45, with $809,975 coming from oil commissions.
On August 3, 2000, Zureikat's account held $848,683.11. Due to account transfers between July 27 and August 3, $760,667.66 to $809,975 of the total he held in his account at this time came from oil commissions. On this day, Zureikat made the following relevant transactions:
$15,666 to Galloway's spokesman, Ron McKay
$20,000 to a Mr. Ali Ozer Balikei
$40,000 to Petrocorp AVV
$50,000 to his own company, Middle East Advanced Semiconductors, Inc
$150,000 to the Jordanian account of Galloway's wife, Amineh Abu Zayyad
$340,000 to Mariam Appeal's account in London
Transfers of $6160.45 to other sources
In other words, on August 3, 2000 Zureikat has $848,683.11 in his account, and $760,667.66 to $809,975 of that came from oil commissions. He made transfers of $6160.45 to unknown sources, so Zureikat had $754,507.21 to $809,975 from oil commissions in his account when he made the transfers to Galloway's spokesman, Galloway's wife, Galloway's Mariam Appeal, and other entities. If we subtract the amounts given to other entities, there was at least $628,695.73 from oil commissions in the account when the transfers to Galloway's wife and political campaign were made.
Since there was at least $628,695.73 from oil commissions in Zureikat's account at the time he transferred a combined total of $490,000 to Galloway's wife and campaign, there could have only been $219,987 available of non-oil funds to have been a part of this total.
Conclusion: Galloway's wife and Mariam Appeal received at least $270,012.62 from oil commissions made by Fawaz Zureikat.
So you have no comment at all on the fact that intervention is allowed "as an exceptional measure to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe" making the Kosovo war legal?
The main thrust of your argument (if I can flatter it as such) changes with every post you make, which is why I consider you a troll.
Do you accept that the above distinction makes Kosovo legal?
Do you accept that such an argument does not apply to Iraq?
yours is just one opinion.
I tend to agree with this group.
Illegal but Morally justified.
Kosovo campaign 'illegal', say MPs
Nato's bombing campaign was not sanctioned by the UN
A committee of MPs has issued a report strongly criticising the conduct, strategy and judgement of Nato's war against Serbia.
The Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee said the military campaign was of "dubious legality", but added that Nato's intervention on behalf of Kosovo's ethnic Albanian population had been justifiable on moral grounds.
The MPs said Nato had made a "serious misjudgement" when the alliance failed to predict the mass expulsions from Kosovo that followed their air strikes on Serbia.
We conclude that Nato's military action, if of dubious legality in the current state of international law, was justified on moral grounds
The MPs' report
The cross party committee is now urging the government to publish Nato's assessment of why it had nore foreseen Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic's response, given the "over-riding public interest" in what happened.
Nato leaders were also criticised by MPs for publically ruling out a ground invasion of Kosovo and for being overly optimistic that the threat of air strikes would make the Serbs back down.
No war powers
The MPs concluded that Nato has no powers under its treaty to conduct a war on humanitarian grounds without the consent of the United Nations.
The cross-party group called for the Nato treaty to be rewritten with a new code for humanitarian interventions.
During the campaign Russia repeatedly threatened to use its veto in the security council to prevent the UN backing military action.
However, the committee said that more should have been done in advance to warn the Serb leader Milosevic that Nato would wage a bombing campaign if his troops attempted ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.
Nato too 'optimistic'
The report said: "We conclude that Nato's military action, if of dubious legality in the current state of international law, was justified on moral grounds."
It added: "We believe a very serious misjudgment was made when it was assumed that the bombing would not lead to the dramatic escalation in the displacement and expulsion of the Kosovo Albanian population."
The MPs said many Nato political leaders had been "excessively optimistic" that the Yugoslav government would back down in the face of the threat of airstrikes or after a short bombing campaign.
And turning the to the alliance's strategy it concluded: "Serious consideration of a ground assault only began towards the end of the campaign and, given the military and logistical difficulties involved, it is likely that if it had proved necessary to launch a ground assault the conflict might have been prolonged and might have involved many casualties."
The committee urged the government to reconsider the use of cluster bombs given the risk posed to civilians.
It also called on ministers to justify the controversial bombing of a Serb broadcasting station in which 16 people died, and to disclose the outcome of the review into the error which led to the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by US warplanes.
'War crime'
The MPs' report follows a statement from Amnesty International in the US published on Tuesday, which said that Nato unlawfully killed innocent civilians in Kosovo.
It said Nato violated the "rules of war" and in particular condemned the attack on Serb state television.
It amounted to a "grave breach of the laws of war" and Nato "therefore committed a war crime", Amnesty said.
This was denied by Nato spokesman Mark Laity, who said that the organisation had already been cleared of war crimes accusations.
That is a valid opinion. However, if something is "illegal but morally justified", then one would think that the rules would need to be modified to allow action that is morally justified to be carried out in future.
We cannot morally watch ethnic cleansing and do nothing, even if the Russians object.
There is, however, no similarity between the "dubious legality" of Kosovo and the outright illegality of the war in Iraq.
You may have a point that humanitarian intervention is still disputed by some, however as there was nothing humanitarian about the Iraq invasion, you are simply comparing apples and pears.
I sometimes think you are being contrary simply for the sake of being contrary.
Not at all.
I'm making the point that some people happily describe Blair as a war criminal then shift to "he hasn't been convicted of anything" when a politician (and wife) are shown to have spent the proceeds from a fraud on the Iraqi people.
But one is as clear as the nose on your face and the other is not. Whatever you think of Galloway he has not been convicted and has successfully sued twice.
Blair may not have stood trial but then neither have the men who take part in decapitation videos. Do you think their guilt is under some kind of doubt?
Hardly the same are they..
You keep saying George has sued.
As you know the case of the cash has never been up for grabs.
(reynolds defence)
Kate Moss has successfully sued.
As did Jeffrey Archer.
And the ludicrous Tommy Sheridan.
As you have a legal opinion on Tony Blairs guilt what is your legal opinion as to how the Galloways came to recieve the cash?
Kate Moss has successfully sued.
As did Jeffrey Archer.
And the ludicrous Tommy Sheridan.
Lol. Of course you are correct in each of those cases.
I am not aware that Galloway received any money. He has certainly denied ever receiving money from the Oil for Food programme.
And part of the problem I have with your premise is that I don't think Galloway is that dumb.
No matter what you think of his politics, he is politically quite savvy, able to know what quicksand to avoid. It would be suicidal to take money from that source.
Don't get me wrong, you might be right. But I have no proof and neither do you.
Of course, I know Blair's guilt because it was obvious to one and all. However, unlike Galloway, neither Bush not Blair will ever be put on trial for their actions.
George was always careful to say "I" never blah blah.
It went through the Appeal.
(and George made the documents disappear,he thought)
Although I must admit I was surprised when it transpired the wife and press spokesman had taken a slice.
I didn't think they were that stupid.
But unless all the money transfers are fakes it seems that it is the case.
Time will tell I suppose.
It will.
Just on a final note.
Galloways lawyers employed a forensic expert called Oiliver Thorne to examine the documents from the Iraqi Oil Ministry.
Gues what he said?
Well put it this way.
Galloway is not allowed to say "forged" to describe the documents.
He and his lawyers know.
I'll be fascinated to see what comes of all this. If George was that dumb I'll admit to being flabbergasted.
Post a Comment