Posted on 04/25/2003 3:02:48 PM PDT by Shermy
George Galloway's lawyers today said that he was planning legal action over what they said were "totally untrue" claims that Saddam Hussein's regime authorised payments of more than $10 million (£6.3 million) to the Labour MP.
The fresh accusations against the representative for Glasgow Kelvin were contained in the Boston-based newspaper, The Christian Science Monitor.
Responding to the report, Mr Galloway's lawyers, Davenport Lyons, said that the newspaper accepted that the authenticity of the documents could not be verified.
"Indeed, the alleged content and wording of the documents referred to in the article raise very serious questions about their authenticity and provenance. George Galloway told us today that he thought the alleged wording is bordering on farce and is more like a Private Eye spoof."
The newspaper claimed that documents uncovered in a Baghdad house used by Saddam's son Qusay detailed orders for six payments to Mr Galloway between July 1992 and January 2003 totalling more than $10 million.
"These allegations are also totally untrue," Davenport Lyons said in a statement. "George Galloway did not visit Iraq before 1993 and has never met Qusay Hussein or even heard of any of the other people whose names are supposed to be mentioned in the documents.
"George Galloway has not received any money from Saddam Hussein's regime in return for his support or any other reason and he intends to take legal action in respect of the publication of these false allegations. He hopes that the British media will not further disseminate them under the guise of public interest or otherwise."
The newspaper does not claim that Mr Galloway actually received the millions of dollars or that he asked for or encouraged any payment. It points to questions in The Guardian that raise the possibility that previous documents published by The Daily Telegraph could contain false claims that Iraqi agents could have profited from.
However, it does claim that the two earliest payments, in July of 1992 and October of 1993, are noted down on green stationery as having been delivered.
The Monitor claimed that the three most recent alleged payment authorisations, beginning on April 4, 2000, and ending on January 14, 2003, were for $3 million each.
It said that the January 14, 2003, document, written on Republican Guard stationery with its Iraqi eagle and "Trust in Allah" slogan, called for the "Manager of the security department, in the name of President Saddam Hussein, to order a gratuity to be issued to Mr George Galloway of British nationality in the amount of three million dollars only."
It said that the document stated that the money was in return for "his courageous and daring stands against the enemies of Iraq, like Blair, the British Prime Minister, and for his opposition in the House of Commons and Lords against all outrageous lies against our patient people...."
The newspaper said that the document was signed by General Saif Adeen Flaya al-Hassan, Colonel Shawki Abed Ahmed, and apparently Qusay - according to the former Iraqi general who, the newspaper said, discovered the files in a house in the Baghdad suburbs used by the President's son.
This afternoon, speaking from his holiday home in Portugal, Mr Galloway said: Mr Galloway said of the 1992 date: "(At that time) I had never set foot in the country (Iraq), not met an Iraqi leader and they had probably never heard of me."
Mr Galloway described the latest allegations as "fantastically untrue", adding that they removed any doubt that "I am the subject of a deliberate campaign of forgery and deception".
George Galloway told us today that he thought the alleged wording is bordering on farce and is more like a Private Eye spoof."
What makes Galloway an expert on the wording in Iraqi govt. documents?
The newspaper claimed that documents uncovered in a Baghdad house used by Saddam's son Qusay detailed orders for six payments to Mr Galloway between July 1992 and January 2003 totalling more than $10 million. "These allegations are also totally untrue," Davenport Lyons said in a statement. "George Galloway did not visit Iraq before 1993 and has never met Qusay Hussein or even heard of any of the other people whose names are supposed to be mentioned in the documents.
Nice deflection. Galloway’s visit is not a prerequisite to being paid, or being recruited as an agent of influence. The fact he never met Qusay is another grand deflection - so what? Did Aldrich Aames meet any Soviet leader?
"George Galloway has not received any money from Saddam Hussein's regime in return for his support or any other reason and he intends to take legal action in respect of the publication of these false allegations. He hopes that the British media will not further disseminate them under the guise of public interest or otherwise."
The “guise” of public interest. That’s some guise.
This afternoon, speaking from his holiday home in Portugal, Mr Galloway said: Mr Galloway said of the 1992 date: "(At that time) I had never set foot in the country (Iraq), not met an Iraqi leader and they had probably never heard of me."
Very clever statement, not false but verisimilitude. He wouldn’t be recruited by a “leader.” An Italian site quotes “The Telegraph also alleges that the deal was arranged at a meeting between Mr Galloway and an unnamed Iraqi spy in 1991.” But I can’t find the Telegraph article here on FR.
I believe him. Everyone's probably rounding up the actual 9.5 million number.
He's not denying the payouts exactly, and in total. He's saying he didn't "personally" receive them. Depends on what "personally" means.
A few days ago, when he was wobbly, he "conceded" that "third parties" might have got the money intended for his charities...which aren't charities...because they're political orgs, and don't have to declare their books in UK apparently like charities...which would surprise a lot of donors since I assume they thought giving money for medical care for Iraqi children is, well, the work of a charity.
But I really don't know.
...as stated by George from his villa on the Portugese coast.
That really is the question, isn't it? I can't believe they'd pay him that much just to say nice things about Iraq and promote world peace. They could have gotten much more for their money by hiring an ad agency. No, I have to think Galloway did lots more for all that money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.