W
walstan
Guest
A recent senate report has branded both a French and British politician with colluding with Saddam in the sales of oil during the UN applied embargo. (uk.news.yahoo.com/050512/325/fimql.html)
The report appears long on conjecture but short on proof. The report says that both men were “allocated” oil, but accepts that neither (or in Galloways case, in particular) is there any record of them having gained financially from the “Deals” other than some vague reference without any substantiation to a charity set up by Galloway for children which MAY have been used to launder money. It seems that the committee is not aware of UK law and the high level of scrutiny on all UK based charity’s by the Charity’s Commission who would be hardly likely not to have seen any such transactions. Its worth noting that there is a world of difference between being “allocated” something and actually using it. I get lots of letters from Readers Digest saying I have been “allocated” winning numbers, I still don’t write back to them!! (I keep hoping they will lose my address some day!!!). So, so much for “allocation”.
Unsubstantiated reports of this nature that lend themselves to interpretation by the rest of the world as simply trying to destroy an individual, do the American political system absolutely no good at all and simply reinforce whatever prejudices other people hold. It is worth noting that the report relies almost entirely on the words of Tariq Aziz and internal Iraqi documents. i.e. a single source, it was America and Britains reliance on a single source that lead to the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and could deploy them within 45 minutes that was a fundamental deciding point in going to war with Iraq in the first place and we all know how wrong that turned out to be!
So the question stands, is America now changing from calling anyone who disagreed with it over communism “anti American” and inflicting the worst of Macarthyism on them to calling them “anti freedom” or “anti democratic” or whatever label you want and still using Macarthy’s techniques to try and destroy them?
The report appears long on conjecture but short on proof. The report says that both men were “allocated” oil, but accepts that neither (or in Galloways case, in particular) is there any record of them having gained financially from the “Deals” other than some vague reference without any substantiation to a charity set up by Galloway for children which MAY have been used to launder money. It seems that the committee is not aware of UK law and the high level of scrutiny on all UK based charity’s by the Charity’s Commission who would be hardly likely not to have seen any such transactions. Its worth noting that there is a world of difference between being “allocated” something and actually using it. I get lots of letters from Readers Digest saying I have been “allocated” winning numbers, I still don’t write back to them!! (I keep hoping they will lose my address some day!!!). So, so much for “allocation”.
Unsubstantiated reports of this nature that lend themselves to interpretation by the rest of the world as simply trying to destroy an individual, do the American political system absolutely no good at all and simply reinforce whatever prejudices other people hold. It is worth noting that the report relies almost entirely on the words of Tariq Aziz and internal Iraqi documents. i.e. a single source, it was America and Britains reliance on a single source that lead to the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and could deploy them within 45 minutes that was a fundamental deciding point in going to war with Iraq in the first place and we all know how wrong that turned out to be!
So the question stands, is America now changing from calling anyone who disagreed with it over communism “anti American” and inflicting the worst of Macarthyism on them to calling them “anti freedom” or “anti democratic” or whatever label you want and still using Macarthy’s techniques to try and destroy them?
