Asymmetrical Information

I can believe it. A half-million a year for your own MP is reasonable, since it's stolen money anyway. The hundreds of millions in cash lying around Iraq indicate that Saddam was shorter on people who would sell to him, than on money to spend.

And how close did Galloway come to stopping the war? The polls in the UK were against war, and there was strong dissent in the Labour Party. If Tony Blair had only the average amount of Prime Ministerial guts, Galloway might have at least kept Britain out. It was a good enough gamble.

“Why would Saddaam pay him --it's not like he kept teh war from happening.”

Saddam Hussein has so much money to throw around that he almost certainly paid him out of petty cash. Also, you forget that George Galloway came very close to preventing Great Britain’s involvement in the war. Indeed, he was a very good investment!

The Arab world has been either subtly, or overtly bribing Western individuals for many years. I often find it hysterically funny that bigots make a gig deal about the Jewish money allegedly buying influence. The harsh reality is that the so called Jewish establishment cannot even begin to financially compete against their Arab foes.

“And how could Mr. Galloway have not thought he was going to get caught?”

Sorry, but there was an excellent chance that Galloway would never get caught. The odds actually seemed to be in his favor. This British politician has yet to be convicted in a court of law. However, I’m sure that this is inevitable.

Continuing the motive speculation game, I find the "forgery" theory weak. Why would Saddam forge documents framing an anti-war advocate?

>>A half-million a year for your own MP is reasonable, since it's stolen money anyway

It isn't. Do a quick Google search on the words "Bernie Ecclestone" or "Lakshmi Mittal" and you'll discover that UK democracy, unlike its American equivalent, is up for sale at prices to suit the pocket of the common man. Half a million US$ could have bought you a lot more than one MP. The Iraqis were ripped off too.

If our host had any knowledge of the history of the Labour party in the West of Scotland, she wouldn't be amazed at *anything* that goes on there; it's notorious. My personal opinion is that the Iraqi government was being conned by an intermediary representing himself as Galloway's agent (mainly because I don't think GG would have been able to muster the money-laundering apparatus needed to sell and launder Iraqi oil without it becoming more or less common knowledge in the UK), but I certainly wouldn't rule it out, out of hand.

By the way, I deduce from Bob & David's belief that George Galloway is an influential political figure, that neither of them has spent much time in the UK in the last twenty years. He's of about the stature of that Traficante bloke.

"Continuing the motive speculation game, I find the 'forgery' theory weak. Why would Saddam forge documents framing an anti-war advocate?"

Is the allegation of forgery pointed at Saddam? I thought it was pointed at the Coalition.

“By the way, I deduce from Bob & David's belief that George Galloway is an influential political figure”

Indeed, I strongly believe that George Galloway was influential enough to justify the petty cash bestowed upon him by Saddam Hussein. It would be analogous to my paying ten cents for similar influence. Hey, let’s get something straight---Saddam was rolling in the big bucks. One of his sons reportedly burned one hundred bills to light his cigars!

One thing we do know is that Saddam and his crowd had a really warped perception of how politics in the West worked. Without more information about *how* Saddam thought Western politics worked, we should be very leery of saying that something seemed wild or crazy, for him.

Remember: this was the guy who thought that people like Galloway would summon up enough protesters to defeat America at home.

"One thing we do know is that Saddam and his crowd had a really warped perception of how politics in the West worked."

The above comment is only half right. One simply must understand that the alleged funds given to George Galloway was play money to Saddam Hussein. He would have been foolish to turn down such an offer of support. It would be analogous to somebody asking me to bet a mere ten cents on a pot of gold where the odds were better than 50/50 that I would win.

It’s time for a reality check: the Iraqi dictator was in power for about twenty five years! This evil dude was successful for a long period of time. He did so by alternating between violence and bribery. And Saddam Hussein did indeed possess an adequate understanding of Western political life. He realized that greed influences the actions of politicians like Jacques Chirac and George Galloway.

Galloway has been such a diligent apologist for the Ba'athist regime that it's not at all unlikely he might have been on Saddam's bankroll, with Baghdad eager to call any Western voices their own. Scott Ritter, anyone?

If Galloway is innocent, I would venture to guess that d2's hypothesis is by far the most likely explanation. A desperate regime is easy pickings for enterprising confidence men.

Traficant. My goodness. With the toupée, he looked like Sesame Street's Bert. Without it, he looks like Ben Franklin. Add Traficant to Dennis Kucinich, sprinkle in a little Marcy Kaptur and we Ohioans have got some well-deserved collective guilt.

One piece of circumstantial evidence, but one that makes it easier to believe the charges, is Mr. Galloway's repeated tendency to be charged with financial mismanagement and skimming off of funds at charities he has been associated with and run. I know that after one trial he eventually only had to pay back about fifteen hundred pounds. Still, he has a reputation, fairly or not, as the kind of guy who wouldn't mind enriching himself while performing his political and charitable activities

Jane,

Take off your rose-colored glasses. This guy was MARRIED TO ARAFAT'S NEICE! This guy had a damn PLO flag over his house! This guy flew to Baghdad on a regular basis to hobnob with Saddam. He's been known to the Brits for 20 years now.

Oh but half a mill a year seems outlandish? Please. The guy's as guilty as Scott Peterson.

Also worth noting that Britain has very liberal legalities governing slander suits, so the Telegraph presumably had what it felt was enough evidence to win in court before publishing, or if it didn't, then it felt like giving away free money and yet may.

Bribery was standard operating practice for Saddam Hussein, as it is for almost every Middle Eastern leader, and 375,000 British pounds a year was spare change. You did see the story about the U.S. soldiers in Iraq finding 600 million American dollars? Galloway's pay was just a few poker chips off the top of the pile. What I'd like to know is are there any documents in there related to politicians in the deeply, deeply corrupt European welfare states like France, Germany, and Belgium? As a Canadian, I would be ecstatic if they found something in there connected to the present Canadian federal government (whose Prime Minister's son-in-law is the largest single shareholder in the French-Iraqi oil company TotalFinaELF - yes really). And even though American politics are remarkably clean by world standards, could there have been any financial sweeteners for dovish U.S. politicians listed in those documents? Inquiring minds want to know.

Yeah, this really fails the sniff test. But it doesn't really matter to me- I would so much like this to be so, just 'cause I really, really dislike Galloway. So I think he's guilty- that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

It seems quite plausible to me - Saddam was careful to give favorable deals to countries with Security Council vetoes. It's entirely believable that he would raid the petty cash drawer to pay off politicians - it helps avoid hard questions because it can make an international issue look like just another squabble between national parties and it certainly delays things.

A few opposition party voices can muddy those waters considerably even if they could not carry an actual vote. If Bush hadn't been so dogged in his persuit of the war and so unconcerned about consensus it's rather unlikely that the war would have happened - I think sanctions would have been dropped entirely within a few years as most countries decided it it was too much trouble to take the problem seriously.

"If Bush hadn't been so dogged in his persuit of the war and so unconcerned about consensus it's rather unlikely that the war would have happened"

In other words, thank God that George W. Bush is our President! It is truly frightening to think that the wishy-washy Al Gore could be sitting in the White House. Have many people honestly considered the horror that would have almost certainly occurred if the latter man was anywhere near the ultimate seat of power? We probably wouldn’t have even taken care of Afghanistan by this time. More importantly, the terrorists would have been emboldened by Al Gore’s vacillating nature.

"Also worth noting that Britain has very liberal legalities governing slander suits, so the Telegraph presumably had what it felt was enough evidence to win in court before publishing, or if it didn't, then it felt like giving away free money and yet may."

Great Britain's ultra liberal libel laws border on the ridiculous. A cynic once remarked that the more true the accusation---the more money awarded in a court of law!

It's a shame that the Brits don't hang their traitors any more--I've always viewed it as one of the great injustices of history that Kim Philby died in his Moscow bed instead at the end of a rope. I wouldn't mind seeing Mr. Galloway (assuming, of course, that the charges are true) meeting that fate--it would be a useful object lesson as to the difference between cheering for the enemy and *working* for the enemy. Sadly, it won't happen.

I'd also note that what with one thing and another, I've read quite a lot about GG over the years (he's a frequent occupant of the columns of "Private Eye"), and I've never once heard of him having the kind of money-laundering connections one would need to receive rakeoffs from Iraqi oil. I'd have thought a cash bribe more likely.

I suppose the motive of forgery makes more sense against the coalition. That brings up procedural problems though, such as how someone managed to plant them in a war zone. James Bond works in movies, but not so well in real life.

He's now saying someone else might have accepted the money on his behalf without his knowledge. He's starting to look guilty as hell. He would only make this major admission if he knows that the trail can be found.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,942319,00.html

>>It's a shame that the Brits don't hang their traitors any more--I've always viewed it as one of the great injustices of history that Kim Philby died in his Moscow bed instead at the end of a rope. I wouldn't mind seeing Mr. Galloway (assuming, of course, that the charges are true) meeting that fate--it would be a useful object lesson as to the difference between cheering for the enemy and *working* for the enemy

Interesting view, Scott. How do you think Fidel Castro ought to act when faced with a political opposition which is accepting funds from the USA?

If they're selling military secrets, he's thoroughly within his rights to execute them -- that's rather settled jurisprudence. If they're agitating for elections or free speech, not so much.

One difference, D^2, is that Galloway is actually part of the government, and has (apparently, at least) accepted cash for influence. Opposition party members in Cuba could hardly be said to have influence in the Castro government.

I think one thing that emboldened Saddam over the years was the West's quaint idea of never thinking the worst. The facts that Galloway was part of Arafat's family circle and flew to Baghdad up to once a month and fought viciously for Saddam's regime still leaves us finding it very hard to believe that any money flowed his was from Baghdad.

Galloway's first response, with the embedded "to my knowledge," gives a tiny clue. Now, his admission that perhaps some on his staff may have taken some money, unknown to him. And no public accounting of his Iraqi charity is a way not to embarrass generous (domestic?) donors.

This fails the sniff test?

Right- Galloway is unlikely to face jail time. For what? Being a paid lobbyist while serving as an MP? Legally, could he not have been on the payroll of, say, the French Ministry of Trade?

He will probably lose his seat in Parliament, either through censure (do you do that in the UK?) or through the natural process of democracy.

Then he'll retire, many hundreds of thousands of Pounds later. In disgrace, but rich.

"I've never once heard of him having the kind of money-laundering connections one would need to receive rakeoffs from Iraqi oil. I'd have thought a cash bribe more likely."

Isn't it the nature of money-laundering connections to be hidden from public view? They wouldn't be very useful if everyone knew about them.

As for Castro executions vs. UK executions, the question only makes sense if you make no distinctions between totalitarian-style societies and democratic-style societies. Most people make such a distinction. Furthermore, a person is far more likely to be unjustly convicted in a totalitarian society than in the UK.

MGCC raises an interesting point.

Assuming the allegations are true, what would be the legal implications? Would it be treason if he was paid to argue against the war beforehand, but kept his mouth shut and received no payments once hostilities had actually commenced? A massive conflict of interest certainly, and hopefully also illegal under some other statute, but would it technically be different from a politician taking kickbacks from a government contractor? I suppose in this case there could also be some elements of outright theft or embezzlement, but I think the more interesting question is whether he would be considered a traitor or just a common criminal.

A few responses:

As I say, I'd believe nearly anything about a veteran of the West of Scotland Labour establishment. But the case is much weaker than it looks.

Saying that someone might have accepted the money without telling him isn't a "startling admission"; it's the most likely explanation, far more likely that the Telegraph having made it up. If he's innocent, then it turns out that his mates are a bunch of crooks and the donors to his charity were Baathist thugs, all of which information has been available for the price of a Glasgow Herald for the last five years.

Note that GG is on the out politically anyway; his constituency disappears at the next election due to boundary changes and he was never going to be top of the shortlists to be found a new one.

Two responses to Sebastian: On money-laundering, not really. There is a massive difference between what you need to make a legal charge stick, and what you need to publish a story in the newspapers, even in the UK. If Galloway was an associate of crooked oil traders or crooked local banks, it would have shown up in the British press by now; the Guardian in particular has had a "project" on connections between Arab crooks and British MPs for years. All Galloway's past form is from scamming the charities he ran, not from having been a fixer in the MIddle East. Not conclusive, but it raises doubts in my mind.

I also find it curious that the main difference between totalitarian and democratic regimes is that it's OK for democracies to hang political dissidents. To abstract from the question of Castro's totalitarianism, what would you suggest that Hugo Chavez should do with the people who attempted to overthrow his government by force if he can find evidence that they were funded from outside Venezuela?

"Interesting view, Scott. How do you think Fidel Castro ought to act when faced with a political opposition which is accepting funds from the USA?"

Ah, the moral equivalency card. Wouldn't expect anything less from you, dsquared.

The simple answer is, of course, that Castro is a dictator and will do as he pleases until he dies, flees, or is removed forcefully. History will judge him accordingly--and one of my ongoing goals in life is to make sure that history isn't written by your crowd.

dsquared:

"How do you think Fidel Castro ought to act when faced with a political opposition which is accepting funds from the USA?"

"Political opposition" cuts a fairly broad swath, and the answer would vary greatly depending on the circumstances. If, for example, Ralph Nader were revealed to be accepting funds from the Saudis, it may hurt his political career, but I don't think anyone would suggest he should go to jail, let alone be hanged, for it. If an elected official were accepting money from a foreign power in return for political favours, I think it should be a criminal offense, but again not necessarily treason. If, however, we were actively at war with the foreign power then perhaps a case for treason, and hanging, could be made. And as Jane indicated above, a lot depends on what the "political opposition" is getting paid to do. Espionage is espionage, regardless of who's footing the bill.

If someone tries to overthrow a goverment by force, it's hard to argue that the government doesn't have the right to execute them. I may be tempted to argue that a government that doesn't represent the will of the people has no "rights" at all, but that's a different discussion altogether.

And I hope you're not seriously trying to paint Galloway as a "polical dissident".

"The simple answer is, of course, that Castro is a dictator and will do as he pleases....."

In other words, you didn't answer the question.

"'The simple answer is, of course, that Castro is a dictator and will do as he pleases.....'"

"In other words, you didn't answer the question."

Certainly I did. Castro's dictatorial rule is illegitimate, and anything he does is therefore illegitimate, including whatever he decides to do to dissidents--so it's really a matter of what he's willing to do, and the eventual consequences to him and his minions for doing so. dsquared, being an apologist for such regimes, tried to trap me into some sort of admission, and I threw it back in his face--anyone who would seriously compare the British government to Cuba's government is beneath contempt. Whether you fall into that same category is something I'm not certain of, though what I've seen of your posts here in the past gives me certain suspicions.

"Moral equivalency" is typically what people say when they're attempting to wriggle out of what the philosophers call "inconsistent principles" and more plain-speaking souls call "hypocrisy". It has not escaped my notice that Castro is a dictator, but as I noted above, I don't accept the principle that democracies should hold themselves to *looser* standards than dictatorships.

and Sean wrote:

>>If an elected official were accepting money from a foreign power in return for political favours, I think it should be a criminal offense, but again not necessarily treason. If, however, we were actively at war with the foreign power then perhaps a case for treason, and hanging, could be made.

Which, I think, is basically swallowing one half of my attempted reductio; bravo. If you're going to allow this in the case of Philby and Galloway, you have to allow Fidel Castro his executions too (and Chavez, if he were to lose his currently exemplary scruples); his little state is under far more obvious and proximate danger than the UK has been in since the war. I personally think that's a ridiculous position, but if you don't, fair enough.

I don't understand your objection to using the term "political dissident" for Galloway unless you think that part of the meaning of the term is "heroic person who I think is on the right side". He is a loud advocate of an extremely unpopular point of view. Or do you think that a democracy can get along without such people?

dsquared:

Well, I did say "perhaps". Overlooking the fact that any sentence in a place like Cuba is given without the benefit of due process (which is a lot to overlook), I may be able to grudgingly accept a parallel. Of course, since I specified "elected official" in my example I'm not sure Cuba has any real parallels. I frankly think anything a dictator like Castro does is illegitimate, and any actions taken to overthrow him, perhaps even up to armed insurrection, are defensible. I may not have a coherent position here. My comments were mainly intended to illustrate that your "political opposition" example was overly broad - sort of a rhetorical bait and switch. Galloway's alleged crimes go beyond mere political opposition.

Regarding "dissident", perhaps Galloway is one according to a dictionary definition. I tend to think of a dissident as someone who faces some measure of personal risk for their ideals. Galloway was either (depending on his guilt or innocence) a politician just doing his job or a common criminal bought off by a foreign power. To call him a dissident cheapens the sacrifices made by those that suffered in Russian Gulags or Cuban prisons for their beliefs. I agree that people like him are necessary in a democracy. But in a democracy there is no shortage of people like him, because being like him is easy.

Its easy to believe that Galloway doesn't have the money-laundering connections ... all you have to do is ignore his past and ignore his business partners. Sheesh.

we started the war with embedded journalists and ended with embedded politicians. who knew!

D2, always good for a seque into an abstract moral equivalence.

i'm ignorant of british law. but if galloway received funds during the war a long visit to isle of st helena (no let's make it the falklands) might be appropriate. if not, just chalk it up to a long history of the anti-west left receiving funds from a foreign power.

>>Its easy to believe that Galloway doesn't have the money-laundering connections ... all you have to do is ignore his past and ignore his business partners.

Which business partners would these be? Other than the shady Iraqi donors to his charity, I'm not aware of Galloway having material business interests. Of course, I could be wrong, which is why I'm asking the question.

Comments are Closed.