Galloway vindicated? We don't think so...

Submitted by martin on 18 June, 2003 - 6:43

Following an article in the Mail on Sunday, 11 May 2003, Socialist Worker (17 May) has claimed that George Galloway has been vindicated against the charges of taking money from the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein..
The Mail on Sunday, which has employed Galloway as a columnist, says that documents adduced by the Christian Science Monitor were probably forgeries.

The Christian Science Monitor's story about Galloway receiving money from the Iraqi government came after the Daily Telegraph published documents which it claimed to have found in Baghdad.

Unlike the Telegraph, the Monitor did not publish in full the documents which it claimed to have found, and did not offer any corroboration of their authenticity. The Monitor's story also contradicted the Telegraph's in some respects.
Socialist Worker, however, writes its story to suggest that the Telegraph's story falls with the Monitor's. It has also failed to offer any comment yet on what Galloway has said in response to the Telegraph: that his political operations were funded, not by the Iraqi government, but by Saudi, the Emirates, and a businessman with close links to the Saddam regime.

"I couldn't live on three workers' wages"

George Galloway to The Scotsman, 19 May: "As I told Tommy Sheridan once, I couldn't live on three workers' wages.

"I spend my life working. I don't do anything else. I don't go to casinos, I don't drink alcohol, I've meetings nearly every night of the week
"Of course I don't go around in sackcloth and ashes, why should I? Everything I have in life I've earned myself. Every penny I make I spend. I earned nearly £150,000 last year: I've got an overdraft. I don't have any savings. I spend it on the move on the things I need to function properly as a leading figure in a part of the British political system."

In other words, Galloway is saying that he needs someone to pay him £100,000 a year, on top of his MP's salary, for his political activity (he "doesn't do anything else") in order to "function properly". Maybe groups, working-class groups particularly, that could not reach to paying him such money should not suppose he can represent them.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.