Irish Minister Dick Roche on Bruce Arnold’s sycophantic defence of Declan Ganley

In the current issue of the Village magazine Irish government Minister for European Affiars, Dick Roche, has been given a right of reply to attacks on him in the last issue by Declan Ganley's hagiographer and pet hack Bruce Arnold.
Ganley brought an action against the Village but dropped it and as it satnds the record shows that he has been accused of being a liar, has attempted to defnd his name and has withdrawn his action when faced with the potential of a vigorous defence.
This leaves Ganley the most reputationally compromised politician in Irish public life
You can read the original article and Arnolds article as well as Declan ganley Liar? by editor Michael Smith here

Bruce Arnold’s sycophantic defence of Declan Ganley by Dick Roche Minister for European Affiars


Bruce Arnold’s sycophantic defence of Declan Ganley is fascinating at several levels. Devotion to a ‘hero’ can be touching – Arnold’s paen to his hero is merely cringe making.
The most interesting aspect of Arnold’s efforts is his claim that he has “checked the allegations” against Ganley. I doubt very much that Arnold has done so. If he has there a couple of areas on which he could enlighten those who have been attempting to probe the mysteries surrounding Mr Ganley, the Libertas organisation, its operations and true motives.
One of the most important functions of the free press in Ireland is to provide a forum where journalists – ideally ones with a far greater degree of integrity than has been evidenced by Arnold – can objectively examine the claims made by those who would wish to shape this country’s destiny.
Scrutiny may fall on anyone who puts him or herself forward as a leader, representative or activist – elected or otherwise – and Declan Ganley, for all his millions, should be treated no differently than others who seek public office.
The central argument presented by Arnold in his article for Village last month appears to be built on logic of a very questionable variety: Declan Ganley shouldn’t have to answer any questions because other public figures have not – in Arnold’s opinion – been sufficiently questioned in the past.
Arnold’s of unspecified “allegations” against Ganley is laughable, given that he has been employed to write a book illuminating Ganley’s “political vision.”
The notion that this established relationship with Ganley might have diminished his journalistic impartiality does not appear to have been entertained by Arnold.
Indeed as Arnold has in his words “checked the allegations” against Ganley here are a few issues from the acres of material from Mr Ganley’s self promoted biography on which Bruce might enlighten us all.
First there are Ganley’s claims to have been foreign economic policy advisor to the Latvian Government. This is an important starting point in Ganley’d ‘biog’ so the question arise - has Arnold really checked the facts?
Ganley claims that in 1991 he was Foreign Economic Affairs Advisor to the then Latvian Government. This appointment is supposed to have opened doors for the then young Mr Ganley. It is an important point in Ganley’s ‘biography’. The problem is that the then Latvian PM denies the claim. Colm Keena writing in the Irish Times has pointed out that “people in Latvia who had made inquiries about Ganley at the time were unable to find anyone who'd heard of him. Sources in the Irish embassy in Warsaw, which was accredited to Latvia, told The Irish Times in 1999 it had become aware of the reports about Ganley's activities in Latvia, and had made discreet inquiries. But no trace could be found by the embassy of Ganley's business dealings in Latvia, or of his acting as an advisor to the government ( See Irish Times Saturday, May 31, 2008 “On the mysterious trail of 'Mr No'”), Has Arnold any evidence to contradict this?

During the period when Ganley claims he was operating from Riga, an Irish citizen, Michael Bourke was working for the IMF in Riga. Mr. Bourke recalls meeting Ganley in the city. His meeting with Ganley was discussed in some detail on the Prime Time programme.
He told RTE, “the meeting is one I shall never forget - ----- He said that he was involved in international trade and that he would be setting up his own bank ----- “Ganley International Bank”.
He said he would be getting a licence from the Minister for Finance”. When asked whether the bank ever materialised, Bourke answered, “it did not” and went onto point out that he had contacted the Latvian Ministry for Finance shortly after speaking with Ganley and asked whether they had any information on a bank being opened by an Irish citizen or on application for a licence by Ganley International Bank. The response he received was negative. There was no evidence or information on any such venture. What is Arnold’s view on this ?
Ganley's claims regarding his activities in Russia in the dying period of the Soviet system have been described by experts of that era as not capable of holding water. Jan Urban the Czech journalist/ writer has described Ganley's claims as BS
To recap the claims: Ganley claims, that in his late teens / early 20s :-
- he hit on the idea of insuring the launch of western payloads
into space on Russian rockets.
- he was been invited by the Russians to lead a trade delegation to Moscow.
- to have, during the course of the trade delegations visit, “bagged”
a valuable contract with the Russian authorities for insuring western payloads launched on Russian spacecraft, only to have been foiled when he was forced by the US authorities to drop the idea.
- To have masterminded a major trade fair on Russian metals and alloys
in London.
- To have established a successful business exporting aluminium from Russia to the west at the height of Russia’s “aluminium wars”.
- To have established and owned Russia’s biggest timber business.
Ganley’s claims are all the more remarkable given that they are the “achievements” of a young man with little or no capital, with no knowledge of the Russian language and with no particular personal expertise in any of the areas concerned. In addition the ‘achievements’ were made against a backdrop of turmoil in Russia as it moved from the Soviet system.
It would be fascinating to read Arnold’s take on all of this. Journalists who have investigated Ganley’s claims to have been a major business player in Russia in this period have all run into brick walls – Mr Arnold would be doing his hero a major favour if he produces any evidence to dispel the suspicions that surround the truthfulness of the accounts of Ganley’s adventures in Russia.
Then there are the questions about Ganley’s activities in Iraq. These were probed by RTE. The account of his activities in Iraq given by Ganley clash with the known facts.
Ganley told RTE he walked away “from the controversy surrounding the controversial telecommunications contract in which his consortium was involved in Iraq.
The available material including the remarkable account of Ganley company activities in T Christian Miller’s book “Blood Money: Wasted Billions, Lost Lives, and Corporate Greed in Iraq raise some very fundamental issues which Ganley has to date avoided answering.
In his book Miller suggests that "one case in particular demonstrated how political favours, money and corporate avarice strangled in the reconstruction process and from the start.” Miller is referring to the programme to reconstruct Iraq's telecommunications system and a series of events surrounding Declan Ganley's involvement in that troubled country.
Ganley has sought to suppress any probing of his activities by threatening legal action to prevent questions that should be answered being raised. If Ganley has nothing to hide why the threats? Mr Arnold tells us in Village that he has the answers one looks forward to reading them.
And then there is the issue of Ganley’s Rivada operations. The obvious question that arises is why does the US Dept of Defence dole out contracts to Ganley’s company without the inconvenience of competitive tendering?
The US based Rivada Networks LLC and its various associated companies seem to be Ganley’s main current business operation.
Rivada through its tie up with an Alaskan Native Corporation, Nana Pacific, is in a position to win valuable US government contracts –through the US Defence Department and associated agencies on a ‘sole – bid’ basis.
Companies fortunate to win contracts under these arrangements do not have to subject themselves to the inconvenience of competitive tendering.
This results in Rivada’s case to the company depending in effect on a single client, normally not the happiest corporate position to be in, but as the sole client is the US a less worrying position than might normally be the case – provided the company manages to keep on the ‘right side’ of its ‘patrons’ in the various military & defence agencies.
Rivada’s tie up with Nana goes back to the abortive attempt by a Ganley consortium to win a very valuable contract for the installation of a police telephone network in Iraq during the post war reconstruction, an attempt which led to a major scandal, an FBI investigation - events described in graphic detail by T Christian Miller.
It would be fascinating to have Arnold’s take on this.
It would be equally fascinating to have Arnold’s take on the number of off shore tax havens that appear in Ganley company activities, to have his views of on the $120 million in vouchers handed over by unfortunate Albanian citizens to Ganley’s Anglo Adriatic Investment trust – a matter probed in RTE’s excellent documentary about some of Ganley’s business operations.
Given Arnold’s evident admiration of Ganley & Libertas he might also address the mounting evidence that Libertas has been rather less than successful in bringing together credible candidates for the upcoming EU Parliament elections. Few of the Libertas candidates have any well defined record of public service: some can most charitably be described as full-blown Europhobic.
One further question the Arnold might turn his mind to is why does Ganley always try to shut down opponents with threats of legal action - is he afraid of the truth or is he just a bully?
Ganley likes to talk about openness, democracy & transparency – he is reluctant to practice any of these virtues – as was demonstrated in Libertas reluctance to answer questions as to its funding in last year’s referendum.
While Libertas likes to preach about democracy its founder is not always accept a central feature – the right to hold an opinion that differs from himself. Declan frequently threatens litigation. In this he is travelling the same path as James Goldsmith another rich Europhobe who used the threat of Court action to silence opponents.
In November 2008, Ganley's solicitors issued threats of legal action to Irish politicians, including Joe Costello of the Labour Party. This follows comments by Costello regarding Libertas funding.
According to the Irish Times "Mr Ganley has threatened to sue Mr Costello for substantial damages, following Mr Costello's charge that the Libertas founder has "a subversive foreign agenda".

Ganley also threatened to sue Jim Higgins, the Fine Gael MEP. Higgins responded vigorously & Ganley appears to have backed off.
Ganley has issued several threats to take on journalists including the RTE team that produced the Prime Time special. ( A complaint to BCC on the programme was rejected out of hand )
Action has even been threatened against people posting messages on Politics.ie, a website controlled by a Libertas employee.
Most recently we have had the action against Village Magazine – an action that seems to have faded when faced with a determined and robust defence.
As in so many other areas it would be fascinating to have Mr Arnold’s journalistic take on this.


The June issue of the Village is out now. It also contains two other features on Declan ganley http://villagemagazine.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/party-over-new-party-needed/

One by Mark Murray on Libertas and Ganley's far right pan European connections and one by Michael Smith on Ganley's flawed pedigree

Blogger interviews Irish Minister Dick Roche on Declan Ganley and European Affairs

Roche lambastes Krugman, Klaus and Ganley.

by Frank Schnittger
Thu May 21st, 2009 at 07:16:28 AM ES

Interview with Dick Roche (part 1) from Frank Schnittger on Vimeo.

Part 2

Interview with Dick Roche Part 2 from Frank Schnittger on Vimeo.

Ganley "Watford is still my home" 2008 "Watford WAS my Home" 2009 What a difference a year of lying makes

For Declan ganley Ganley in 2008 Watford was still his home. How come he argued so much about his nationality over the past yer then? Read

'Watford's still my home' from the Watford Observer

Ganley was back in Watford this week with friends and family but now he says that it was his home. the change of tense from Is to was in only one year is quite a turnaround.

So what has changed for Ganley in the last year? Well Ganley claimed to be Irish and argued with Irish Minister Dick Roche over his filling in company returns where Ganley stated he was British rather than Irish.

However his claim that he had done this by ticking a box mistakenly has been comprehensively disproved and therefore Mr Ganley was caught lying.

Irish Minister Roche says Libertas campaign based on "spin, deception and hypocrisy"

You may have seen the post of this weekend about Raymond O'Malley, the former representative of Irish farmers who has "put his reputation on the line" for Declan Ganley and Libertas.

It seems that O'Malley, like Declan Ganley, is not only a hypocrite; he is also now campaigning against the interests of the farmers he used to represent.
The below is just released by the Irish Minister of European Affairs, Dick Roche, whose Wicklow constituency is within the Leinster European constituency that O'Malley is contesting for the far right Libertas party.

Libertas Election Campaign will be built on spin, deception and hypocrisy - says Roche.

“It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Libertas campaign in the upcoming European elections will be based on spin, deception and hypocrisy”. Minister for European Affairs Dick Roche told a Fianna Fail meeting in Baltinglass last night.

“In recent days, we have seen the campaign launch by two of the announced Libertas candidates. Both campaign launches were long on rhetoric and short on policy detail. Both were used to recycle the same untruthful lines peddled by Libertas in last year’s referendum”.

Declan Ganley and Raymond O’Malley both spoke about openness, transparency and democracy. Neither are prepared to practice what they preach. Libertas has still to provide responses to questions raised by the standards in Public Office Commission regarding the funding of its campaign in last years referendum.

In both campaign launches, Libertas has pedalled the same old myths regarding democracy and the European Union. Both campaign launches repeated the jaded old lie that decisions in Europe are made by nameless bureaucrats. Decisions in the European Union are made by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Both have democratic mandates.

Under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, democracy in the European Union will be further extended, by giving new powers in European law making to National Parliaments.

The launch of the campaign of the Libertas candidate for the East constituency brings a new element into the picture – rank hypocrisy. The candidate, Mr. O’Malley who spent years lobbying in Brussels, is now complaining about the role of lobbyists. Organisations such as Trade Unions, Farming Associations and Social Interest Groups play a legitimate role in policy making. In his previous existence, Mr. O’Malley would have defended the rights of the IFA to be heard in Brussels, now he questions the legitimacy of the very process in which he was engaged.

The most extraordinary hypocrisy, however, on O’Malley’s part is his lame defence of Declan Ganley’s savage attack on the common agriculture policy as a “weapon of mass destruction”. The common agriculture policy has pumped billions of euro into farming in this country and into Ireland’s rural economy. Ganley has made it clear that he wishes to fundamentally destroy that policy and it is bizarre that Raymond O’Malley now indicates a willingness to join him in that destruction.

If Libertas wants to be taken seriously in the forthcoming European election campaign, its time its representatives started to practice what it preaches.

O’Malley and Ganley could make a good start by injecting a degree of truthfulness into their campaign, by agreeing to be bound by the same rules as will apply to every other party and organisation contesting the election and by answering fundamental questions in relation to Libertas funding and the level of support it received in last years referendum campaign from euro-sceptics based outside Ireland and from the US defence contractor with whom Ganley has been operating.

Ends
24th March 2009.

Libertas plead ignorance over failure to provide SIPO with information

There is a thing called having your cake and eating it. Scandal plauged Declan Ganley and his motely crew of hirlings are great at telling us that they will bring transparency to politics and yet they withhold all information about their dodgy funding for the Lisbon vote in Ireland in June.

The fact that a US Defence contractor paid full time staff for Libertas is a key issue for subaltern Ganley. The tea-boy to the neocon warmongers if found to have broken electoral lawscould face crininal.

Ganley has been given until 30 March to provide proof to back up his claims regarding the funding. It took him months to declare that he himself had provided at least 200,000 euro. The SIPO enquiry should sharpen the focus of other european countries on Libertas funding in their states and also the potential sweetner deals, like the offer turned down by a Swedish party of one million euro to change their name to Libertas, must be examined.

Where are the millions coming from?.
Here are two pieces from today's Irish Times

Organisation says it was not informed of deadline

MARY MINIHAN and KATHRYN HAYES

LIBERTAS SAID it would not have been subject to such scrutiny by the Standards in Public Office Commission if it had campaigned for a Yes vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.

The organisation, founded by Declan Ganley, said it had not been informed of a deadline for the publication of the commission’s report.

The report said Libertas had failed to provide required information.

However, Libertas said in a statement it had an ongoing dialogue with the commission and remained willing to provide the information required by March 31st. Libertas said the report did not change “certain fundamental truths” about the Lisbon Treaty referendum.

“We note that the Liberal Group in the European Parliament has said it will provide whatever resources necessary in support of a Yes vote at a future referendum. One can only hope that the appropriate scrutiny will be given to this side of the campaign too.”

Commenting on Mr Ganley’s expected decision to declare himself a candidate in the European Parliament elections, Taoiseach Brian Cowen said yesterday it was Mr Ganley’s democratic right to run in elections but said the Standards in Public Office Commission expects everyone to “live by the same rules”.

Speaking during a visit to Limerick, Mr Cowen said: “We live in a democracy but I note from the Standards in Public Office Commission today that it expects everyone to live by the same rules as everyone else and I hope that whatever incomplete information he [Ganley] was able to give so far will be given.”

Minister of State for European Affairs Dick Roche said the commission report demonstrated the need for an immediate strengthening of electoral law.

Labour and Fine Gael also criticised Libertas in light of the report

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Libertas fails to co-operate with loans inquiry

MARY MINIHAN

LIBERTAS HAS failed to provide information on loans to the Standards in Public Office Commission, according to a report on the Lisbon Treaty referendum commissioned by Minister for the Environment John Gormley.

The standards commission said it wrote to Libertas regarding the provision of loans to fund its referendum campaign after Libertas informed the commission of a loan provided by its founder, Declan Ganley.

The commission asked whether other loans had been provided to fund the campaign. “At the time of writing this report, and despite a number of written and telephone reminders to Libertas, it has failed to provide the required information to the standards commission,” the report said.

Recommending ways to improve electoral legislation, the report proposed that failure to co-operate with inquiries “should constitute an offence”.

It also said political parties and “third parties” should be required to disclose details of expenditure on referendum campaigns. Individuals or groups, other than registered political parties or candidates at an election, which accept political donations exceeding €126.97, must register with the commission as “third parties”.

The commission said media reports prompted it to check that Libertas was complying with legislation regarding the opening and maintenance of a political donations account, as well as the non-acceptance of prohibited donations. It wrote to Libertas on June 19th, 2008, requesting details of any loans provided to it from a financial institution or other person for the purposes of funding its referendum campaign.

The report said Mr Ganley replied on August 13th, 2008, confirming that Libertas had received a personal loan from him “in respect of which a detailed legal agreement and repayment plan in accordance with commercial lending norms” had been agreed.

The commission wrote to Mr Ganley again on August 22nd, 2008, requesting a copy of the legal agreement and repayment plan for the loan made to Libertas.

“In spite of subsequent correspondence with Mr Ganley and his legal representatives, the information requested by the standards commission has not been provided by Libertas at the time of writing this report.” The commission also made inquiries about employees of Mr Ganley’s communications technology company, Rivada Networks. “It was suggested that persons employed by Rivada may have been paid by that company while working for Libertas on its referendum campaign,” the report said.

The commission said if that was the case it could be regarded as a donation to Libertas from Rivada. “If the total value of the services provided exceeded €6,348.69 in any year, Libertas would be required to refund the excess donation to Rivada.” Libertas confirmed that Rivada employees “who worked on the Libertas project did so in their spare time and on a voluntary basis”.

Last September the commission asked Libertas to provide further details of employees who worked on the referendum campaign. “At the time of writing this report, Libertas has not provided this information to the standards commission.”

The commission also looked into Libertas’s distribution of copies of a book, The Lisbon Treaty: the Readable Version, as part of its campaign.

“It was reported that the book ‘sells for €20’ and that 35,000 copies of the book had been given to Libertas by another organisation, the Foundation for European Democracy,” the report said.

Following an inquiry, Libertas confirmed on August 13th, 2008, that it had received a number of copies of this book from “the EU Democrats”.

Libertas said the books did not contain any political message and were distributed free of charge.

The commission wrote again to Libertas, advising that if the books were provided free when a charge normally applied and were given for the purposes of seeking to influence the outcome of the referendum, “it would be regarded as a donation to Libertas”.