NY Times Hides Galloway in "International," and Leaves
Out Damning Testimony
Today The New York Times hid its news article on the damaging
and blistering anti-Bush anti-war testimony of MP Galloway before the
US Senate in the NY Times "International" section ... guess
that the US Senate is foreign territory now for NY Times editors.
And guess who the NY Times had to 'write' its most pro-Bush spin ----
none other than the lying Judith Miller--the neo-cons' mouthpiece at
the NY Times. Propagandist Judith Miller is Chalabi's best newswhore
that the NY Times put front page for weeks on end in the Bush administration's
And don't bother to re-read today's Judith Miller piece on Galloway's
Senate testimony thinking you missed what Galloway actually said------because
the NY Times did not publish ANY of the damaging testimony of Galloway----IT'S
Just because Galloway's entire testimony is published in the TIMES of
London, the NY Times somehow found that it's just not "All the
news that's fit to print."
Cant have any messy truthful testimony on the crooked Bush administration
be read by Americans. No No No. But the NY Times can, and did, publish
on today's front page a lead INSIDE paragraph on the "Newsweek"
witch hunt(Newsweek dared report what has been reported for
over 2 years in the world's press.)
READ Judith Miller's crappy article first - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/18/international...
THEN listen to what Judith Miller 'left out' (after listening, you'll
see why Miller hid the damaging words that shows the neo-con Bush administration
are war liars: mp3 (4 minutes): Galloway's statement at US Senate hearing
v the US Senate: transcript of statement (London Times)
George Galloway, Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, delivered this
statement to US Senators today who have accused him of corruption
"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
"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.
"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
"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
"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
"There were 270 names on that list originally. That's somehow
been filleted down to the names you chose to deal with in this committee.
Some of the names on that committee included the former secretary
to his Holiness Pope John Paul II, the former head of the African
National Congress Presidential office and many others who had one
defining characteristic in common: they all stood against the policy
of sanctions and war which you vociferously prosecuted and which has
led us to this disaster.
"You quote Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Well, you have something
on me, I've never met Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Your sub-committee
apparently has. But I do know that he's your prisoner, I believe he's
in Abu Ghraib prison. I believe he is facing war crimes charges, punishable
by death. In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about
how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Airbase, in
Guantanamo Bay, including I may say, British citizens being held in
"I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything
you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances. But you
quote 13 words from Dahar Yassein Ramadan whom I have never met. If
he said what he said, then he is wrong.
"And if you had any evidence that I had ever engaged in any actual
oil transaction, if you had any evidence that anybody ever gave me
any money, it would be before the public and before this committee
today because I agreed with your Mr Greenblatt [Mark Greenblatt, legal
counsel on the committee].
"Your Mr Greenblatt was absolutely correct. What counts is not
the names on the paper, what counts is where's the money. Senator?
Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars of money? The answer
to that is nobody. And if you had anybody who ever paid me a penny,
you would have produced them today.
"Now you refer at length to a company names in these documents
as Aredio Petroleum. I say to you under oath here today: I have never
heard of this company, I have never met anyone from this company.
This company has never paid a penny to me and I'll tell you something
else: I can assure you that Aredio Petroleum has never paid a single
penny to the Mariam Appeal Campaign. Not a thin dime. I don't know
who Aredio Petroleum are, but I daresay if you were to ask them they
would confirm that they have never met me or ever paid me a penny.
"Whilst I'm on that subject, who is this senior former regime
official that you spoke to yesterday? Don't you think I have a right
to know? Don't you think the Committee and the public have a right
to know who this senior former regime official you were quoting against
me interviewed yesterday actually is?
"Now, one of the most serious of the mistakes you have made in
this set of documents is, to be frank, such a schoolboy howler as
to make a fool of the efforts that you have made. You assert on page
19, not once but twice, that the documents that you are referring
to cover a different period in time from the documents covered by
The Daily Telegraph which were a subject of a libel action won by
me in the High Court in England late last year.
"You state that The Daily Telegraph article cited documents from
1992 and 1993 whilst you are dealing with documents dating from 2001.
Senator, The Daily Telegraph's documents date identically to the documents
that you were dealing with in your report here. None of The Daily
Telegraph's documents dealt with a period of 1992, 1993. I had never
set foot in Iraq until late in 1993 - never in my life. There could
possibly be no documents relating to Oil-for-Food matters in 1992,
1993, for the Oil-for-Food scheme did not exist at that time.
"And yet you've allocated a full section of this document to
claiming that your documents are from a different era to the Daily
Telegraph documents when the opposite is true. Your documents and
the Daily Telegraph documents deal with exactly the same period.
"But perhaps you were confusing the Daily Telegraph action with
the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor did indeed
publish on its front pages a set of allegations against me very similar
to the ones that your committee have made. They did indeed rely on
documents which started in 1992, 1993. These documents were unmasked
by the Christian Science Monitor themselves as forgeries.
"Now, the neo-con websites and newspapers in which you're such
a hero, senator, were all absolutely cock-a-hoop at the publication
of the Christian Science Monitor documents, they were all absolutely
convinced of their authenticity. They were all absolutely convinced
that these documents showed me receiving $10 million from the Saddam
regime. And they were all lies.
"In the same week as the Daily Telegraph published their documents
against me, the Christian Science Monitor published theirs which turned
out to be forgeries and the British newspaper, Mail on Sunday, purchased
a third set of documents which also upon forensic examination turned
out to be forgeries. So there's nothing fanciful about this. Nothing
at all fanciful about it.
"The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial
activities with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact. It's a proven fact
that these forged documents existed and were being circulated amongst
right-wing newspapers in Baghdad and around the world in the immediate
aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi regime.
"Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy
that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop
the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one
million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they
even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason
other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that
time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster
that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your
case for the war was a pack of lies.
"I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not
have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your
claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world,
contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity
on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the
Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their
country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of
the end, but merely the end of the beginning.
"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned
out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people
paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their
deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled
forever on a pack of lies.
"If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose
dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac
who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world
had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would
not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the
mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from
the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars
of Iraq's wealth.
"Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal.
Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first
14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your
watch. Have a look at Halliburton and other American corporations
that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer.
"Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter,
that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds
of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you
gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country
without even counting it or weighing it.
"Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the
newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee.
That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians
or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies
with the connivance of your own Government."