Galloway Bluster Fails to Convince Senate

GEORGE Galloway yesterday failed in his attempt to convince a sceptical US Senate investigative committee that he had not profited from oil dealings with Iraq under the UN’s controversial oil-for-food programme.

Despite a typically barnstorming performance full of bluster and rhetorical flourishes, the former Glasgow Kelvin MP was pinned down by persistent questioning over his business relationship with Fawaz Zureikat, the chairman of the Mariam Appeal - set up to assist a four-year-old Iraqi girl suffering from leukaemia.

And it was a Democrat senator, Carl Levin, rather than the Republican committee chairman, Norm Coleman, who gave him the hardest time as Mr Galloway sought to turn the tables on his inquisitors, leaving him no closer to clearing his name than when he took his seat in front of the sub-committee of the Senate’s homeland security and government affairs committee in Washington.

Time and again, Mr Levin questioned him, requesting wearily that he deliver a straight answer to a straight question. But Mr Galloway could, or would not.

The Respect MP clearly thought he came out on top, and said so bluntly afterwards, describing the chairman as "not much of a lyncher".

But Mr Coleman, accused by the MP of being "remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice", appeared unswayed by Mr Galloway’s testimony. "If in fact he lied to this committee, there will have to be consequences," he said afterwards.

Asked whether Mr Galloway violated his oath to tell the truth before the committee, Mr Coleman said: "I don’t know. We’ll have to look over the record. I just don’t think he was a credible witness."

He was quick to let Galloway know that he wasn't for, that evil, and illegal invasion of Iraq.

To put your charge in context, Galloway was evading answering Levin's pointed question and when Galloway said "You supported the illegal war" Levin replied he did not, clearly meaning he did not vote for it. Yes, Levin may even think of the war as "illegal" but his point was his vote, not joining with Galloway's meandering diatribe in some kind of effort to curry favor with the oaf, as you seem to imply.

Levin then proceeded to pin Galloway down on the issue at hand regarding the chairman of Mariam's Appeal.

I know Levin's motives and they're no surprise. His pushing Galloway on the authenticity of the document and the illegal oil allocations are what counts in the here and now.

And to other naysayers, note how many Committee members were present for this appearance. Two. Coleman and Levin.

Before Galloway appeared Coleman had a panel of investigators detail for about an hour the evidence they had accumulated to date. This included documentation as well as witness testimony.

I'm going to see if I can find a transcript. I do believe too many people have no idea of what went on here and are focusing on side issues and, most inexcusable, the histrionics of a shallow and venal man by name of George Galloway.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.