Summary verdict: Tie A more detailed report: After a summary of the evidence against him, George Galloway was given a few minutes to make a statement before being cross questioned by Sens Coleman and Levin.
Galloway came out fighting with statements like "I have not now been an old trader and never have been nor has anyone done so on my behalf." and "you have found me guilty before giving me a chance to respond." He stated he had met Saddam Hussein twice only - as many times as Donald Rumsfeld, who was selling him arms and spy satellite data - and that the second meeting was an attempt to let Hans Blix into the Iraq. He stated that he had always opposed the Hussein regime and provided a dossier to back that up with documents from 15 March 1990 to the present. Curiously he stated he had opposed it earlier too "from when you (Americans or at least Sen Coleman) were protesting the Vietnam war" though he provided no evidence.
He stated that there was no document tying him to anything in Iraq other than a few lists that had showed up after Hussein was overthrown. Some of the lists originated from that conman Ahmed Chalabi. He wondered why, of the 270 names on the list he was one of those picked. He stated that he was in the same comapny as the Vatican and the ANC who also appeared on the list and that also in common with them he had opposed sanctions against Iraq and the OFP. He stated that he had never met Taha Yassin Ramadan, speculated that Ramadan had been tortured in Abu Ghraib and stated that if Ramadan actually stated the mere 13 words used to implicate him (Galloway) then he (Ramadan) was wrong. He denied all knowledge of Aredio Petroleum, denied that it had ever made a contribution to Galloway's Miriam Appeal and denied that he knew anyone assocated with the company. One thing that occured to me was that he stated things very carefully and no doubt intended them to be interpreted in sweeping ways whereas he actually stated very specific things and I may have misheard a couple of them.
He was very clear however that the Senate documents refered to the same period as the documents he had challenged the Telegraph on and won his libel case. He stated that the docs refering to 1992/93 were ones used by the Christian Science Monitor which later admitted their falsity and he attempted to muddy the water by claiming that numerous other "right wing" newspapers had been offered fake documents inplicating him. This again was, I believe a cunning attempt at misdirection since the Senate stated that the documents were different to the Telegraph ones in other ways than just that the Telegraph documents were from 1992/93. The key passage from the PSI report is:
On December 2, 2004, Galloway won a libel suit against a British newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, relating to an article on Galloway’s involvement in the Oil for Food Program.102 The article that instigated the lawsuit apparently included forged documents concerning Mr. Galloway that were purported to be found in the Iraqi Foreign Ministry after the fall of the Hussein regime. The documents in that article included correspondence from 1992 and 1993. The British court ruled that the documents were “seriously defamatory,” that the newspaper was obligated to provide Galloway with an opportunity to respond to the allegations in the documents, and that its failure to do so entitled Galloway to damages.
The documents presented in this Report have no relation to those discussed in the Daily Telegraph piece. First, the Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and 1993, whereas the earliest document examined here dates from 2001. In addition, the seemingly forged documents in the article were connected to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, while the documents examined by the Subcommittee were prepared by the Iraqi Ministry of Oil and its subdivision SOMO. Finally, the Daily Telegraph documents reportedly included allegations that Galloway was on the payroll of the Hussein regime, receiving a salary or direct payments. In contrast, the evidence examined by the Subcommittee indicates that Galloway was granted oil allocations that would have to be monetized through complex oil transactions.
It does seem to be true that the Senate did partially confuse the Telegraph dates with the CSM ones, as the CSM's retaction indicates that the Telegraph documents originated from approx 2000 whereas the ones it had supposedly dated from 1992/93 however it is also clear that the Telegraph documents are claimed to have originated from the foreign ministry whereas the Senate ones did not. In other words in typical Galloway style he picks up on one error and misidrects attention from other places which could be more truthful. For example, as far as I can tell, no one has yet proven that the Telegraph documents are actually fake - the libel was fought on "neutral reportage" and "public interest" grounds and the only analysis of them that I am aware of, made with respect to and in comparison with the bogus CSM documents (link above), indicated that the Telegraph ones were credible in terms of style.
To return to the Senate hearing, Galloway concluded with a statement that the sanctions against Iraq killed 1 million Iraqis (mostly children) and that Galloway wanted to stop the killing. He also stated that he had protested the war, that it was all based on lies and that everything he and others, such as Chirac or Annan, had predicted about how the war not be simple had been bourne out. Furthermore he questioned why the US was investigating the UN OFP when it should have been investigating the profiteering etc. of the 14 months of the US adminstration - i.e. another attempt to play to his supporters and divert attention.
Senator Coleman ignored the grandstanding and based his cross examination with questions on Galloway's relationship with Fawaz Zureikat. Under questioning Gallowy confirmed that Galloway attended Zureikat's wedding (or vice versa), that Fawaz Zureikat had become the chairman of the Mariam Appeal that Galloway founded, that Zureikat was the 2nd biggest donor (the first and third, according to Galloway were the Sheik of one the UAE and a Saudi Prince) and Zureikat was the designated representative of the appeal in Iraq. It is clearly established that Zureikat and Galloway are buddies and that Zureikat is instrumental in the Mariam Appeal despite the various attempts as diversion by Galloway.
It is also interesting to note that the Telegraph documents alleged that Galloway received £375,000 a year from Hussein and that under Coleman's cross questioning Galloway stated that Fawaz Zureikat's donation to the Miriam Appeal was £375,000. Given that £375,000 seems to be a remarkably precise sum I wonder whether this helps validate the Telegraph documents?
Galloway repeated his utter denial of any link beween Aredio Petroleum and the Appeal and stated that if the document was correctly translated then it was wrong.
The questioning then moved on to Middle East ASI, a company owned by Fawaz Zureikat, whether Zureikat ever discussed trading oil with Galloway. Galloway spent a long time trying to avoid answering the question directly. He stated that everyone knew that Zureikat was trading with Iraq, that the Miriam Appeal announced that fact and used it to as its pitch for journalists visiting Iraq. Coleman doesn't let him get away with this non-answer and keeps on coming back to did Galloway know Zureikat was trading oil from Iraq. Galloway comes up with a curious waffle of it was none of my business, I never asked what he was trading in Iraq. Galloway denies receiving any money and claims that the Mariam Appeal was investigated by the UK's charity comission (+ gratuitous slur on Goldsmith) and every penny in and out was accounted for. This doesn't answer the question and does lead me to additional questions such as where did Zureikat's money that he donated come from and did he perhaps pay the kickback before the money entered the Appeal? Also it is worth noting that the idea that the Charities Commision actually cleared the Appeal is flat out false as Harry reminds us.
This is again unacceptable and the question is asked again. Answer is that Zureikat never gave Galloway a penny. Finally after being told to stop the BS and answer the question yes or no he states that he did not talk about oil to Zureikat until after the Daily Telegraph exclusive.
Senator Levin takes over and asks him whether he is claiming that the documents are forgeries. Galloway prevaricates but eventually admits that he is not stating that and would be willing to be more precise after he has made a closer examination.
Levin then asks him to assume that the document is correct and if so is he troubled that his freind Zureikat paid kickbacks to Saddam. Galloway initially tries the "everyone else was doing it why are you worried about Zureikat and not the American oil company. Levin states that the activities of Bay Oil trouble him(Levin) a lot and asks Galloway again about Zureikat. Galloway goes into a rant about what troubled him was the horrible sanctions killing 1 milllion Iraqis ans the OFP only providing 30c/Iraqi/day. He quotes some former US senator that the sanctions were "Infanticide masquerading as politics" and repeats that the sanctions troubled him "Not becasue of kickbacks. Not because people got rich. But because it killed Iraqis".
Again the question is asked and Galloway states he is troubled because his friend is in trouble. Levin asks if the fact that money for the Mariam Appeal may have come from someone paying kickbacks to Hussein troubles him. Galloway goes on about how Senators get their money from dodgy groups like AIPAC. Levin points out that US politicians almost always pay the money back when they discover that it is tainted in this way and since Galloway clearly isn't going to answer the initial question sticks it into the record that Galloway had no compunctions about accepting money from any source for the Mariam Appeal.
Finally there is a brief couple of questions about Tariq Aziz. It is established that Galloway did not discuss oil with Tariq Aziz. Coleman takes over and asks how many times Galloway met with Aziz. Many times and more than 10 times are the final answers.
Coleman leaves it there but it is rather a good ending for people with a memory because it rather shoots a hole in Galloway's "no freinds of Hussein" argument. It is clear that while Galloway may have met Saddam Hussein only twice he did indeed meet leaders of the Hussein regime "many times" contrary to his initial bluster.
I class the meeting as a draw because I don't think Galloway covered himself in glory but neither was he irretrievably wounded. He came across as a dodgy witness unwilling to answer a question but the questions were not exactly the sort that make for good headlines. To some extent Galloway is correct in that the documents do not show that he personally benefitted from the OFP or that he personally paid or knew about the bribes. Galloway basically claimed that he and Zureikat had a "Don't ask don't tell" policy and no compelling evidence is presented that clearly disproves that. To put it simply those who went in to this (as I do) thinking that he was guilty as sin heard nothing that would make us change our mind but likewise those who went in thinking him an innocent victime also heard nothing that would force them to chanee their mind either.