George Galloway accused again...

[mrph]

US Senate report says he was entangled in the Oil For Food scandal.

As Galloway points out, he's already won a libel case over this in the UK. Ad the charity commission has cleared the charity involved, after a full investigation.

Galloway's a politically suspect loon, but that doesn't mean he's guilty. And the timing of the report - a week or so after he upset Blair by winning a seat in the election - lends itself neatly to conspiracy theories, doesn't it?

Comments

[blooddoll3.livejournal.com]

ring me!!!!!!!!!!!!!¬! do you still need lift? are you arriving at 8.30???????

[rag-man.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't it have been a more effective smear campaign before the election rather than after?

[daevid.livejournal.com]

Despite the fact that i don't like the man myself, i would have to agree with you that i does seem very suspicious indeed *strokes chin in that mmm manner*

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

I never put down to conspiracy what I can put down to incompetence, and the USA intelligence services have been very good at incompetence recently.

[paulw.livejournal.com]

I don't think this is aimed at him in perticular. The US seems intent at dismantling the UN and this is just another stab at it.

[dmh.livejournal.com]

Yup, highly suspicious.

[mistdog.livejournal.com]

Unless Galloway is a cretin (which I don't think), then he knows very well that this new report is not based on the same one as his libel case, so bringing the libel case into it is disingenuous. He also said on Radio 4 this morning that he's never seen "a barrel of oil". I'm sure he knows perfectly well that a barrel is the measurement of volume of oil not the container, and is trying to draw attention away from something else.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Well, someone seems to be a cretin - but possibly not Galloway. I've just watched the video of the testimony to the senate, and Galloway has corrected them on that point - seems they had the wrong dates (?!) on their references to the libel case, and their reports did duplicate the time covered in that case after all. At least according to him...

[mistdog.livejournal.com]

And yet... he also said that the Charities Commission had inspected his charity's accounts. Er, no, said the interviewee from the CC, they wouldn't give us their accounts, we've only seen their UK bank account which we accessed using our statutory powers, and we know they have other bank accounts overseas.

I still get the feeling that he's being less than honest.