If you look at the anti-galloway campaign there is a subliminally brainwashing - heavily edited clip of a speech Galloway made when meeting Saddam so publicly.
pigTV has done the damage I guess by publishing this over and over.
The half braindead got switched into a more complete numb morde.

This has to countered with the fact that OPEC etc. dealt with President.Saddam not the tyrant for business purposes.
It was a 13 year sanctions regime and many peopel dealt with Saddam. Some covertly like Chirac but courageous Galloway was straight except no one could imagine such a fabricated document being planted.
Being a politician he had to utter useless shit like Honourable Gentleman at home to whatever that shoould be said to get things done by a dictator.

Chavez met Saddam openly too on OPEC matters.
Many more world leaders (?) and ministerial delegations met with Saddam.

I think alt.media should counter this media induced brain numbness. It is worth an editorial in everyones favourite IMC-UK maybe?

Even a general round up of events on the UK angle will do a lot towards this.

Saddam was a tyrant who was an idiot to work with the CIA. Definitely did so in the 80s. Yes a lot of bad tings were done by this idiot but there were 25 million people and oil.
Galloway was on a humanitarian mission to highlight the plight of the Iraqi people who the US/UK heads themselves claim were abandoned in 1991.

George Galloway's 'crime' is not his relationship to Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party of Iraq, whatever that may turn out to be, but his relationship to Tony Blair and the Labour Party of Britain. Yes he spoke out, yes he criticised, but did he ever for a minute consider leaving the party waging the war or encouraging others to? No, from his speeches in Hyde Park you got the opposite message, that though highly critical of the war and the warmonger in chief, he was just as dedicated as ever to the party and the government waging that war.

Galloway has spent a decade defending Iraq, almost single-handedly, against sanctions and war. If he had won, millions of dead people would now be alive. THAT is the most important point about this man.

Whatever political errors and shortcoming he may, or may not, have (who can tell from the unspeakable British corporate propaganda media?), he has fought a very worthy cause--that is why he is being targeted now. The fact that he is being savaged by the Torygraph (born with a silver spoon up its arse) and the semi-fascist comics like the Mail, says it all.

I'll wait and see what happens. Those documents, which so far only Galloway has suggested are false, accuse him of taking food out of the mouths of starving Iraqi children to fund his own - infamously lavish - lifestyle.

If he did take 'oil for food' money he deserves to be lynched.

Opus64,
With All respect...are you sure of what you are suggesting here.
Do you trust the Daily Telegraph? If you had gone on a march and read their description of the very march (anti-war of course not the NFU's) you should know whether to trust them or not.

'taking food out of starving Iraqi children?!' 'deserves to be lynched!' are you tripping.
UNICEF last year mentioned a figure of a million or so child deaths directly due to the sanctions regime!!

This guy was going to be welcomed to Iraqi soil (probably the only westerner who would have got a massive crowd honestly gathering) ....even the Ahmed Chalabi is not popular as this man is...he ha shis mistakes but a lavish lifestyle is not one that bothers me.

For your info
'Mr Galloway said that if he had had any dealings with the oil-for-food programme, the documentation would be with the United Nations in New York and that the newspaper's claim that he had met Iraqi intelligence officials was incorrect "to the best of my knowledge"'

 http://www.itv.com/news/2049519.html

...so that is the end of poor little Galloway. Daily Telegraph's journalism is a cornerstone for reasoning behind this war.

Al-Qaida-Saddam link found !!

 http://www.itv.com/news/2049519.html

So they will stick to this all the way now. There will be an avalanche of phony evidences popping up all over the place.

Even the phased further 'revelations'/fabrications on Galloway (if it is of so much national importance, could it be phased for every edition?) will not be paind any attention to now!!

Dear fellow Indyans,

Considering your eagerness to denounce the 'wicked reproaches' and accusations against (Gorgeous) George Galloway, I assume that you believe the accusations are worth denying; i.e. you believe that the acceptance of political bribes from the pre-war Iraqi government would constitute an illegal and unacceptable act.

So then, can I also assume that if Galloway is actually found guilty (even admitting guilt himself), regarding these allegations, that you will be just a quick to condemn the man himself?

Frankly, I'm not convinced that you consider his alleged 'crime' to be a crime at all. Let's face it: since when has someone who takes a 'pro-Islamic' stance against Western interests been anything but a freedom-fighting hero for the self-loathing lefties who dominate this site?

When Galloway is found guilty - and he 'will' be found guilty - let's see if your balls are bi-partisan enough to send Galloway to the Gallows.

First fuck all UK parliamentary politicians.

Lets assume they are all criminals for simply going with the flow and playing out the daram YES THIS IS HUGE CRIME.THE WAR WAS ILLEGAL.THE SANCTIONS REGIME WAS SHROUDED IN LIES AND VERY INHUMANE.

But Galloway shouted loud at meetings and said some pretty sensible (common sense but only the other politicians will never dare say them) things. He did not say anything new I did not know or was it different from what Chirac was blurting.
But it is good to hear from these positions in polical life.

If this talkshop can contribute to any pro Galloway campaign it could be a good way to organise more future methods to give alt.media voice to otherwise totally hounded down plliticos.

If this man was gorgeous and all how come his website is zero?

THe Sunday Herald dedicates a lot for Galloway.

 http://www.sundayherald.com/

Conrad Black finally gets his peerage

Michael White, political editor
Wednesday September 12, 2001
The Guardian

Conrad Black, the Canadian-born newspaper tycoon who owns the Telegraph group and the Spectator magazine, finally achieved his social ambition in Britain yesterday when Downing Street announced that the Queen has confirmed his long sought peerage.

The statement from Tony Blair's office - hours before the attacks on New York and Washington - ends a protracted drama in which William Hague's original nomination of his most active supporter among Tory media tycoons was blocked for much of last year by the new Lord Black's political enemies in government in Canada.

Jean Chretien, the Liberal federal premier who had been on the receiving end of strong attacks from Mr Black's National Post newspaper, refused to sanction the peerage, citing technical impediments dating back to 1919. They prohibit Canadian citizens from accepting British peerages.

Mr Black, the 56-year-old son of a wealthy Toronto investor, had taken British citizenship in June 2000 in order to qualify. But his name was dropped from a list of 36 new "working" peers as the Ottawa government said it needed more time to consider this unprecedented dual nationality application.

He sued Ottawa, but lost. In May this year the tycoon resolved the stand-off by renouncing his Canadian citizenship.

Mr Black spent 30 years building up the global Hollinger media empire, though in recent years falling profits have seen him sell substantial interests outside Britain.

 http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/comment/0%2C7495%2C551148%2C00.html

"hours before the attacks in New York and Washington" ??

 http://cranstonscorner.tripod.com/lihop.html
They Let It Happen On Purpose!
9/11 The final Dots - Top 20 LIHOP Suspects

by Nico Haupt of OurDNA.org
**************

CONTENTS:
Introduction - 11 Months Later.....An Introduction
LIHOP SUSPECT NO. 1 - Jerome "Jerry" Hauer, Human Health Institute
LIHOP SUSPECT NO. 2 - Dr. Thomas Inglesby, Johns Hopkins Institute
LIHOP SUSPECT NO. 3 - Stephen Hatfill – Anthrax Prime Suspect
LIHOP SUSPECT NO. 4 - Dale Watson, FBIHQ
LIHOP SUSPECT NO. 5 - Thomas Pickard, Bristol Myers Squibb
LIHOP SUSPECT NO. 6 - James Woolsey (Shea & Gardner, CFR, ex-CIA)
LIHOP SUSPECT NO. 7 - Richard Clarke (CSG chief and Cyber Security Task Force)
LIHOP SUSPECT NO. 8- Richard Perle, Head of the Defense Policy Board
LIHOP SUSPECT NO. 9- Dr. Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
LIHOP SUSPECT NO. 10- Henry H. Shelton, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
LIHOP SUSPECT NO. 11- Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State
LIHOP SUSPECT NO. 12- George Tenet, CIA
LIHOP SUSPECT NO. 13 - General Mahmud Ahmad , former Pakistan Secret Service ISI
LIHOP SUSPECT NO. 14- Tommy Thompson, National Institute of Health
LIHOP SUSPECT NO. 15- CFR – Council on Foreign Relations
LIHOP SUSPECT NO. 16- ANSER
LIHOP SUSPECT NO. 17- Department of Defense
LIHOP SUSPECT NO. 18 - Frank Carlucci, Carlyle Group
LIHOP SUSPECT NO. 19 - Abdullah Noman
LIHOP SUSPECT NO. 20 - Philip A. Odeen
CONCLUSION - Bubbling Under


**************

11 Months Later.....An Introduction
Imagine you wake up from a coma and you learn that 11 months ago, an "Attack on America" destroyed some significant buildings, killed 3,000 people and forced a war against terrorism. You switch on the news and see pictures of Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, India and Pakistan.

Someone tells you that 19 hijackers organized kamikaze attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, on behalf of someone called Osama bin Laden, and that a few weeks later a series of anthrax attacks gave the nation a further shock.

Someone else claims that the two attacks actually were unrelated.

What do you do? Because you don't trust hearsay, rumors or "memories," you try to find your own answers, and see if this story is true.

You search in the biggest library in the world, the Internet, and try to find reliable, mainstream articles. Where else should you go? You didn't subscribe to the papers and you did not tape the last 10 months worth of television.

After many hours on the Net, you finally realize that the articles you have found contradict each other. Naturally you ask yourself: Who is lying and who is telling the truth?

In these articles, you come across a great many similar reports about the same 20 people, all of whom seem to be connected in some way with both of the attacks. Even if they were not directly involved, these coincidences look very strange to you. Some among these people are also connected with each other, as well as having ties to both of the attacks and to cities and places which are also tied to both attacks.

You ask yourself: Why?

Oddly, you also find out that many of the alleged hijackers are reported to have worked at military bases, or taken courses at CIA-connected flight schools.

Why? Which of the articles are true?

In the end, you find out enough evidence demonstrating that these 20 people must have known a lot, but seem to have allowed the attacks to happen.

You start to speculate if this happened on purpose, because:

a) no articles denied their involvement;

b) these same people are among those most frequently demanding more money be spent against new attacks.

But none of them really seems to know the "official hijackers."

Is that why someone said not to ask questions? You begin to call your hypothesis the LIHOP (Letting It Happen On Purpose). Why did they let the 9/11 attack happen on purpose? Who are the people behind these people?

You want to find answers in public, but few are willing to even entertain these questions. Even more oddly, there has been no public investigation of 9/11. No commission has been appointed. Plans for investigations have been repeatedly postponed. No one seems to know anything about a new start. All this is said to be for reasons of, "national security."

Why?

Who are these people, and why did they let the attacks happen on purpose? Why are these people NOT really connected with bin Laden? Why has no one in the mainstream media written about them? Why has bin Laden not been found? Why, "all of a sudden," does the US Government plan to start a war against Iraq? Why are lawmakers who leaked information about prior warnings of the Sept. 11th attacks being asked to take lie detector tests?

Why are so many other questions still unanswered, as one website,  http://www.unansweredquestions.org claims?

Even more odd: Why is it that this website is supported by reliable sources who once worked for the government? Even more "strange": Why do so many relatives of the 9/11 victims support this initiative to force out answers?

Why are these particular relatives of 9/11 victims not receiving any public attention? Has everyone forgotten them?

Which members of the government are lying, and why? Why do the 911 relatives also want answers? Did they also fall into a coma after the attacks?

Now imagine that just as you have asked these questions, you suddenly fall into a second coma, and when you wake up this time - some months later - someone tells you that Iraq has been accused of sending the anthrax, and that U.S. troops have been bombing it for months, and that it's all starting to look like World War III?

After this second coma, you learn that Afghanistan looks to be in better shape now, thanks to the building of an oil pipeline, and the toleration of the drug business. You also learn that the recession is considered to be over, that the smart money has moved back into the market to buy stocks in the makers of biopharmaceuticals, facial recognition systems, personal control chips, and, of course, weapons.

After your second coma, you decide once again to go to the Internet, to see if you can find out what is really happening. But wait, what if this Internet has been shut down - for "national security" reasons? Who could you ask then?

This is what this article is about. It should be discussed in public, on national and public access TV.

Of course there is no solidarity to Galloway... why to support a boss?!? They Daily Telegraph plays its own pro-war game as usual but that doesn't mean that we should support someone in power. You see the so-called socialists who are sharing a part of the parliamentary power, if they were real socialists they would resign as soon as the western capitalist democracies declared a world wide dictatorship! or as soon as the war on Iraq begun... But nothing like that happened. So why shall we show solidarity to him??? Because he is opposed to the the ones in power? He and his likes are doing this only to get in power... "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't apply to intelligent human beings!

G. Galloway is one of those who manipulate and use the anti-war movement for their own political agendas! Wake up people! We should be against all kinds of bosses, not only against the capitalist bosses...

please get your history right on the man.

what you say probably applies to Charles Kennedy.

Galloway has a huge humanitarian aspect even before entering politics. Palestinian freedom was a primary aspect of his politics when his people chose him to the pigsty.

I recommmend today's Sunday Herald
 http://www.sundayherald.com/

Yes he is a McPig for being a plitician and all but personal merits do sometimes overweigh ones mistakes.

Anyhow see it this way...use the man when your cause overlaps.
Parliamentary democracy here is utter bullshit!

firstly, we should all know by now how deeply conrad black and barbara amiels telegraph is concerned with the israeli interest.

the case against George(one of the few mps with any spine and an awareness/care of the outside world) is a deliberate strategy. when he is financially compensated he should flush that filthy dt money away. no good could come out of the earnings of that pile of filth.

they (dt) are openly admitting taking part in the looting of iraq!!

i think the dt itself should be shut down.

Have to agree with colin on this. The bottom line is,
Galloway is a politician, and like any politician he
would love to be the figurehead of a movement, use
its momentum for his own ends and have us all worship
him.

If we want to make any lasting positive change in this
world, we have to stop relying on figureheads and leaders
and DIY.

Socialist Worker are standing by Galloway:

Well, I sent him a message of solidarity. He might be a politician and a boss, but he's the victim of a state-sponsored fit up - something that can happen to anyone who goes even slightly against the bastards who run the world. He might not be on our side, but he at least fights against the enemy.