We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

The Honourable Member for Baghdad Central

The Daily Telegraph is running an impressive scoop of documents allegedly proving that George Galloway MP was in the pay of Saddam’s regime. George Galloway has long been ridiculed as the “Member for Baghdad Central” for his defense of Iraq; now it appears that he was motivated by pure greed rather than just a love of controversy.

It is impossible for outside commentators to be absolutely certain of the authenticity of these documents. Perhaps they have been planted by British intelligence. Perhaps they were written by the Iraqi foreign office as a prepatory insurance policy, for blackmail. Perhaps there is even an innocent explanation, though I do not see how there could be.

Occam’s razor, however, suggests that George Galloway MP was corruptly attempting to change government policy towards an hostile nation from the floor of the House of Commons, that he was giving aid and comfort to the enemy for personal gain.

I believe there is a legal term for that.

27 comments to The Honourable Member for Baghdad Central

  • Buddy Larsen

    So, when he made those speeches about how corrupt the British Government is, he wasn’t lying, insofar as his particular knowledge?

  • Buddy Larsen

    So, when he made those speeches about how corrupt the British Government is, he wasn’t lying, insofar as his particular knowledge?

  • Galloway said he never met an Iraqi spy to the best of his knowledge. Maybe he thought he was their Minister for Peace and Freedom. Or, maybe they were planted by the Iraqis on their way out to make the Coalition paranoid thinking they had a bunch of moles. Or, maybe the spy who got the money invented the documents, took the money for himself, and there was only innocent communication with Galloway. Or, maybe G. is guilty as charged.

  • zack mollusc

    Ha ha ha ha ha!
    This is funnier than a vegetable that has grown into a rude and amusing shape!

  • Phil Bradley

    Mr. Galloway deserves to go to prison for a very long time. Mere words can’t describe how much this man disgusts me.

  • Patrick W

    Scumbag. Loathsome spotted reptile. This @#*$ should go down for life. Actually, if this is a clear and provable case of treason, am I not correct in thinking that treason is one of the very few crimes for which UK law still admits the death penalty? Any legal eagles out there to advise?

  • David Packer

    Sadly this is no longer the case. The Blair regime removed that last vestige of sanity a few years back; Britain no longer has the death penalty even for High Treason. No doubt they realised that most modern traitors were from the political ranks.

    So, we are to be denied the edifying spectacle of Galloway doing the Tyburn jig, or the gory, but morally satisfying, sight of “Sir” Edward Heath being hung, drawn and quartered.

  • Force him to clean the rubble in Baghdad, with the former imates of the childrens’ prison to watch over him to make sure he does a good job.

  • It will be fascinating to see what effect this has on next week’s election for the Scottish parliament. Although Galloway is not an MSP, he is the best known MP in Glasgow – the heartland of Labour’s support. No doubt many will say that “there’s no smoke without fire”.

  • Chris Josephson

    I’m waiting to find out what was in the other marked boxes. Like the one marked US.

    Was there one marked France?

    It wouldn’t surprise me at all if many Western countries, with vocal anti-war ‘actvists’, had ‘activists’ in the pay of the Iraqis.

    It’s too bad the ‘oil for food’ program benefitted everyone but the ordinary Iraqis.

    I bet a few folks at the UN are sweating right about now as well. Wonder how many UN delegates benefitted?

  • Ian

    The Telegraph mentioned Galloway got £375,000 a year from the oil-for-food/Baghdad corruption thing, after trying to increase his ‘cut.’

    That will go down well with his constituents. And I wonder what all the not-in-my-name idiots will make of it? Anti-Palestine propaganda, no doubt…

  • Dave F

    The Teegraph story is very interesting and presumably the info is checkable: the oil broker must be traceable, his alleged Iraqi agent is named and so on.

    But until this is done, from an old hack, a word of warning to those commenting and to Malcolm Hutty: Galloway may not be in a position to sue over this story, time will tell. But he is famously litigious and any comments assuming guilt are potentially actionable –– unless the allegations will stand up in court.

    It may be worth rewording the last para.

  • G Cooper

    The merits of the Daily Telegraph’s story aside, it’s a great pity that Charles Moore (the Telegraph’s editor) is such a lamentable broadcaster. On Today, it was he who sounded shifty, rather than the toad, Galloway, who was at his pugilistic best. Conrad Black should issue an edict, keeping Moore away from both the radio and TV – neither suits him.

    As to the story, how can one be at all surprised? But I would echo Dave F’s warning – the wording here is asking for trouble and Galloway is just the sort of Stalinist creep who would enjoy dishing it out.

  • Byron

    Off with his head!

  • mad dog barker

    Libertarians – get a grip!

    Remember one of the maxims of the libertarian cause. “I may not agree with what the man says – but I will fight to the death to defend his liberty to say it”.

    And as for treason, oh let’s not go there. Treason is a crime commited only against the state. And it is very worrying when libertarians start to defend the state against the actions of an indevidual.

    I might be wrong, but to the casual observer it might seem that the forces of “neo-conservatism” not libertarianism that are being expressed in such full voice here.

  • Ian

    The Guardian reports that Galloway is already going to sue the Telegraph over its allegations.

    Does this mean we have to wait ages and ages for a trial to substantiate them or show them to be utter lies?

  • T. Hartin

    “And it is very worrying when libertarians start to defend the state against the actions of an indevidual.”

    This would be true if we were anarchists, but we are not. I see no reason why a libertarian can’t
    bring a charge of treason, as libertarians recognize that the state has certain core functions that are legitimate, including the protection of British citizens against foreign aggression. Galloway apparently took money from a foreign aggressor to undermine that legitimate function, thereby putting British citizens at risk. If that aint a crime, it should be.

    Having said that, I recognize that charges of treason has been bandied about too freely in the past in an attempt to insulate the state from accountability. That is not what we seem to have on our hands here, though.

  • Steph Houghton

    Treason is the crime of helping a foreign power harm your neighbors or of overthrowing a ligitimate government. I fail to see how stopping either of those acts is “unlibertarian,” unless that is you try to argue that all liberarians are anarchists. Not only is that not true it is in opinion the oposite of true. As someone or the other once said, “the Anarchists are the shock troops for the statests.”

    Those libertarians who beleve they are anarchists are mostly just advacates of extreamly limited government.

  • Sandy P.

    You don’t need treason, all you need to do is audit him. Has he paid his taxes on this income? Did he list this income?

    His net worth should be exposed for all to see. Coupled with his using that fund for his own expenses, it doesn’t look good.

    If the tories are smart, they’d push for more openess for all those running for office. We do in America. Great generalities in releasing financial info, but all smart pols release their tax returns.

  • brian

    There’s probably some really interesting investigative journalism to be done concerning the link between all sorts of “peace” activists and Saddam. (Will be interesting to see if much is actually done though. . .)

    Whenever we have a big peace protest, I have to wonder who is paying for it. The rank-and-file cannon fodder are just 18-20 year-old kids who don’t know any better and are looking for something to do – but the professional protestors, the organizers, who don’t appear to have jobs – who’s paying for them? Who’s paying for the buses and printing out the signs. . . that sort of thing.

  • Marty

    It’s easy to see that Galloway is lying..

    His lips move !!

    Galloway your time is up

  • Dave Farrell

    No sooner was the warning out of my gob than Gorgeous George was saying that “we will see what the courts have to say in due course”. I like the “In due course” — that’s politician speak for “whenever, dude”. He also opined that the Telegraph report was “fatally flawed” and this was an obvious attempt to silence “important voices on the left”. His denial was curiously circuitous: “It would have been very foolish of me to do that (take money from Saddam)”. Yes.

  • G Cooper

    Also revealing in the Telegraph’s report was the presence in the ruins of a fawning letter from the traitor Heath (the man who sold Britain to the Continent).

    Heath’s critical position on Iraq (not to mention his years of arse-licking the communist Chinese government of gangsters) would, were there any justice in this world, earn his head a place on a pikestaff over London Bridge, right next to Galloway’s, Kinnock’s, Brittan’s and Patten’s, along with those of a few other well-connected traitors.

    As Brian has suggested earlier, what is badly called for here is some decent investigative journalism into who really squats behind this “peace movement”, pulling its strings. Sadly, the broadcast media, though they can afford to do it, won’t, because they are in sympathy with it, while resources in the print media today are far too meagre these days, unless an order comes from the very top. Murdoch? Black? Where the hell are you when you are actually needed?

    All the same, there is an excellent case for background research to be undertaken and for it to be published somewhere. And once the “peace movement” has been explored, there are plenty of other candidates for similar treatment. Transport and ‘ecological’ lobby groups, anti-globalisation activists, political ‘think tanks’, charitable foundations, single issue pressure groups (who provide so much of the BBC’s material) – many of them have interesting cross-connections, many are funded from curious sources, most are deeply embedded in our university system and few would retain sufficient credibility to sway public opinion, were people told what they were really up to.

    Galloway is just one loudmouth who, it is claimed and to be hoped, has been caught-out. There are so many others eating away at society from within and getting away with it.

  • It really is laughable to see how obvious it always was that Labour sleaze would again tower over Tory sleaze, as it always has done in the past (recall the friends of Harold Wilson).

    But, seriously let’s remember the things we believe in – Mr Galloway is innocent until proven guilty.

  • IMHO you took the right tack with your post here. Thank you for that. It is much preferrable and inducive of dialogue than going apeshit one way or the other.

    At the same time you made your opinion/postion clear. A good thing.

    My opinion is that it all seems too fantastic to be true. But quick denials indicate either 100 percent innocence or 100 percent guilt.

    We’ll see. Obviously I do not want it to be true. And it does all seem rather too convenient.

  • T. Hartin

    “Mr Galloway is innocent until proven guilty.”

    Well, no. The legal formulation is that the accused is presumed innocent, in order to set up the burden of proof that each side must carry. That is all.
    Mr. Galloway’s guilt or innocence are what they are, regardless of what a court says. If he took the money and carried Saddam’s water, he is guilty even in the absence of a court verdict. See, eg, OJ simpson, Acquittal of.

  • Somewhat later, it turns out (to my total lack of surprise) that the whole thing was yet another forgery.