Basically this Senate Committee put together a dossier and accused George Galloway MP (Respect Party) of receiving allocations of Oil (millions of dollars) from the Saddam Hussein dictatorship. But they haven't actually questioned Galloway or got him to put his side across.
A lot of the 'evidence' was found wanting, and much like the war on Iraq was built on some flimsy assumptions and hear say. Could it be that all this is a smokescreen? Something to try and divert from the already damning view of the illegal War?
This is the view that Galloway has put across and he has come out quite well at the moment after his appearance.
"l have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one sold one and neither has anybody on my behalf."
I am happy that Galloway has stood up and has the chance to talk to the Senate. It's a great platform for him to put across the anti-war argument and it may actually work in favour to have been accused as he has been put on a platform and can make a stance against the true criminal, the USA.
He denied that he had met Saddam 'many times' and said that he had only met him on 2 occasions.....exactly the same amount of times as US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
"The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and maps - the better to target those guns. I met him to try to bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war."