THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

I've just watched some of the prepared statement Bush read out to mark the cut and run job Bremer did in Iraq.
I don't know whether he was tired, or confused or hadn't read his brief but I couldn't listen to much of it, he made so many errors it was embarrassing.

Joke #2. Transfer of Sovereignty. Held at a secret location, rushed through 2 days early in case they all get blown up.

Joke #3. The rumour is that the first Governmental Decree will be to nationalise the oil industry.

Joke #4. (sick) The new prime minister Alaywi is responsible for blowing up a bus load of children. Whatever happened to that nice Dr Chalabi? I'm sure he didn't do anything like that.

0 Replies

Quote:

this new set of allegations is totally unrelated to and unaffected by the Galloway vs Times/CSM matter you reference.

Which are what exactly?

Quote:

If anything, recent discoveries validate many of the earlier claims for which the Times and the CSM were chastized

What recent discoveries?

I hold no brief for Galloway. I can't stand the man. And I was actually disappointed when he won his case. But smear campaigns are a dirty business and I will have nothing to do with them.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Steve's right, Sofia continues to post a list that has been, in at least some cases, proven to be based on forgery.

If that makes the joke "on him" well then I guess that's supposed to mean a good thing.

Sofia's posting apocryphal drek, Steve is correcting it. Timber is ignoring the simple factual correction to exhibit a partisan disregard for facts.

Other Sources and Investigationscorroborate the Al-Mada list, which itself, despite vigorous challenge, has not been discredited.

It doesn't look good for those currently under the gun. I don't dispute that I'm partisan here, but I do dispute the contention I am ignoring "factual correction", of which none has surfaced.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Other Sources and Investigationscorroborate the Al-Mada list, which itself has not been discredited.

Feel free to corroborate the charge Steve refuted then. The links you provided do not do so and merely repeat the generalized allegations of corruption.

Quote:

It doesn't look good for those currently under the gun. I don't dispute that I'm partisan here, but I do dispute the contention I am ignoring "factual correction", of which none has surfaced.

False, it has surfaced and Steve linked to it. You said the joke is on him but you do not have any evidence that addresses his refutation at all, much less supercedes it.

If you have it post it. And posting links that do not in any way do so isn't going to cut it.

If you want to tell Steve that the joke is on him for refuting a charge then by all means address what he posted. You have not done so.

If you believe that the factual correction hasn't surfaced I draw your attention again to what you are, indeed, ignoring.

This is really simple. It was a specific charge, with specific documents that were shown to be forgeries.

If you claim otherwise, then feel free to bring the evidence. What you have done thus far is merely repost articles on the general subject of the corruption and done nothing to address what Steve brought to the table.

If you are going to call it a joke, then you might want to be careful with the evidence, not everyone simply assumes your links do what they claim they do, some actually read them and will call you on them.

0 Replies

Well, the list was published by Al-Mada ("outside Bagdad, a virtually unknown new newspapers" as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty pointed out), a list, which was simultaneously translated and published on the web site of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) and which is citied since then by New York Sun, The Weekly Standard, New York Post, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Sunday Times of London, World Net Daily, Washington Times, and UPI (and timber and Sofia :wink: ).

We will see.

0 Replies

So let me see if I understand this.

A Kurdish member of the Iraq Governing Council says he has a secret list of bribes paid to individuals involved in the oil for food programme.

Therefore George Galloway is corrupt, because he might be on that list when we get to see it, and if he's not, he should be because we always doubted his integrity anyway.

This is infantile.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Sorry for delay, have been away.

No sweat. My complaint was never that you were entirely off on your assessment... you weren't. It was that it had nothing to do with the material that you questioned McG for agreeing with. No biggie. Party on.

0 Replies

Galloway is on the list. The veracity of the list's claims has not yet been ascertained.

0 Replies

What Steve brought to the table is thoroughly irrelevant to the current OFF Scandal investigations ... that is the joke. Respectfully, CdK, I submit that what you are doing is failing to take note of that. The articles I've cited should make clear the point I've been making, which, I will repeat, is that this is a new ballgame, involving evidence supported by an unbroken chain of custody and multiple independent corroborations. The Al-Mada list derives from documents recovered from the former Iraqi regime's Ministry of Oil, and there is no indication of forgery ... quite the contrary, in fact.

0 Replies

Supreme court decision now down....

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Scotus-Enemy-Combatants.html

0 Replies

From Timber's link New Zealand News

Quote:

Jalal Talabani, a Kurdish member of the Iraqi Governing Council, said Iraqi officials combing Saddam's files had not decided whether to release the list

But then I saw it was dated 1st May 2004.

Is this the same as the Al Mada list?

If so what "new" allegations are made against Galloway?

I want to know the answer, I'm getting tired of going in circles.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

What Steve brought to the table is thoroughly irrelevant to the current OFF Scandal investigations ... that is the joke.

What Steve brought to the table is explicitly about OFF. Are you just guessing wildly? Do you even know anything about what we are discussing?

Let me help you:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/24/ngall124.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/04/24/ixnewstop.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=100

Galloway was accused of the OFF corruption and the documents were shown to be forgeries.

The new documents that are central to this entire scandal also mention Galloway and he claims these new documents are also forgeries.

This is explictly about the EFF scandal and is the most visible case in it.

So what on earth are you talking about?

Quote:

Respectfully, CdK, I submit that what you are doing is failing to take note of that. The articles I've cited should make clear the point I've been making, which, I will repeat, is that this is a new ballgame, involving evidence supported by an unbroken chain of custody and multiple independent corroborations. The Al-Mada list derives from documents recovered from the former Iraqi regime's Ministry of Oil, and there is no indication of forgery ... quite the contrary, in fact.

I've made bold some claims, try to support them.

What is the evidence "to the contrary" of the documents being forgeries?

The first ones that came out were shown to be forgeries. What evidence are you alluding to that are "quite to the contrary"?

I am very familiar with the Al-Mada list and have read it several times.

As far as I know, not all of the allegations in those documents have been substantiated. In fact, I believe nearly none have.

The documents that were shows to be forgeries were also supposedly from the former Iraqi government.

So if you have evidence to the documents' veracity bring them to the table.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

If so what "new" allegations are made against Galloway?

Quote:

When you search the web, you only find references to 2003.

Galloway's office doesn't know of "new" ones (at least, that's what they emailed).

0 Replies

Steve, the libel action in which Galloway prevailed per the decision rendered in 2003 was based on allegations raised in 2002, having nothing to do with the Al-Mada list, or the other material to which I've been linking. This indeed is "new stuff". Interestingly, Coalition Provisional Authority figures, some of considerable stature, appear to be implicated in malfeasance as well. I suspect the resultant inconvenience and embarrassment will be widespread and partisanship will provide no shield.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

If so what "new" allegations are made against Galloway?

When you search the web, you only find references to 2003.

Galloway's office doesn't know of "new" ones (at least, that's what they emailed).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/24/ngall124.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/04/24/ixnewstop.html

0 Replies

Yes, that's what I know. :wink:

0 Replies

That is not a reference to 2003.

0 Replies

No, if you see it in the light of The Telegraph.

Yes, if you see it in the light of Galloway('s office).

0 Replies

Thanks for contacting Mr Galloway's office Walter (you are braver than me).

This is what the great man himself has to say

Quote:

Galloway acknowledged that money had been paid into the Mariam Appeal by Iraqi businessmen who had profited from the UN-run programme, but denied benefiting personally, and pointed out that in any case there was nothing illicit about this:

"It is hard to see what is dishonourable, let alone "illicit", about Arab nationalist businessmen donating some of the profits they made from legitimate UN-controlled business with Iraq to anti-sanctions campaigns, as opposed to, say, keeping their profits for themselves."

He doesn't sound too concerned.

0 Replies

The Telegaph article references Mr. Galloway's earlier litigation, and makes clear what currently being discussed is a new matter, based on evidence wholly separate from and independent of that pertinent to Mr. Galloway's previous claim to vindication.

Then too, there's this:

http://www.able2know.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10156/normal_googleal-mada1.jpg

Google it yourself; no news article asserts the Al-Mada list has been found to be a forgery. A general Websearch will turn up plenty of allegations, but the Al-Mada list appears, at least to the satisfaction of legitimate journalism, and The US Congressional committee investigating the matter, using that list among other documents and testimony, to be an accurate representation of information gleaned from files of unambiguous provenance.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know