and his election in Bow is all a bit worrying because of the specific anti-Iraq war manifesto that appealed to the large local Muslim population. He did, however, do a fine job defending himself as he had the right to do.
It is the first time a British politician has ever been interrogated as a hostile witness at the US Senate and it may possibly be the last. It was interesting to see the effect of a very forthright debater of the British Parliamentary style - and Galloway is that, all right - on the formal senate committe. In a way, it was a shame that there were only two Senators rather than the full committe of 13.
To committee chairman Norm Coleman: "Now I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer, you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice,". Way to go, George!
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0517-35.htm for his full statement.
Again, to Coleman "Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong,"
The two senators tried to establish a link between a Jordanian businessman who they believe received oil allocations from Saddam Hussein, and Mr Galloway's children's charity. Mr Galloway said the businessman had given money to the charity but he, Mr Galloway, had never known where it came from. The senators believe that it came from Iraq, but they could come up with no proof and their questions ended. Senator Levin later said he was "deeply troubled" that Mr Galloway had "ducked the question". Not sure I follwo that conclusion's logic.
Outside in a corridor George described Mr Coleman, saying: "He's not much of a lyncher."
Mr Coleman said he didn't think Mr Galloway had been a "credible witness". If it was found he had lied under oath, there would be "consequences", he said.
I suspect, however, that they'll not ask George to go over there again.
Neil
Anyway, Aljazeera like him.
I expect that Tony will be in line for a lot more of George over thenext few years.