More on Galloway
While liberals and progressives have been hailing British Parliamentarian George Galloway's performance in front of the Senate's Oil for Food investigative committee, loyal reader JM from the UK wrote in to remind me that we Americans don't necessarily know the whole back story on Galloway. And that while he's got all the right moves in regards to his anti-war stance, he has a bit of a checkered (chequered) past. From Wikipedia

On April 22, 2003, the Daily Telegraph published an article describing documents which the paper claimed had been found by its reporter David Blair in the ruins of the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. The documents purport to be records of meetings between Galloway and Iraqi intelligence agents, and state that he had received £375,000 per year from the proceeds of the Oil for Food programme [7]. Galloway completely denied the story, insisting that the documents were forgeries, and pointing to the questionable nature of the discovery within an unguarded bombed-out building. He instigated legal action against the newspaper, which was heard in the High Court from November 14, 2004 (HQ03X0206, George Galloway MP vs. Telegraph Group Ltd.) On December 2, Justice David Eady ruled that the story had been "seriously defamatory", and that the Telegraph was "obliged to compensate Mr Galloway... and to make an award for the purposes of restoring his reputation". Galloway was awarded £150,000 damages plus costs estimated to total £1.2 million. In UK libel cases, the winning party is also normally awarded costs, with the loser paying the bill. The court did not grant leave to appeal; in order to appeal in the absence of leave, the defendants would have to petition the House of Lords. The libel case was regarded by both sides as an important test of the Reynolds qualified-privilege defence [8]. The Daily Telegraph did not attempt to claim justification (a defence in which the defendant bears the onus of proving that the defamatory reports are true): "It has never been the Telegraph's case to suggest that the allegations contained in these documents are true" [9]. Instead, the paper sought to argue that it acted responsibly because the allegations it reported were of sufficient public interest to outweigh the damage caused to Galloway's reputation. However, the court ruled that "It was the defendants' primary case that their coverage was no more than 'neutral reportage' ... but the nature, content and tone of their coverage cannot be so described." The Daily Telegraph has not published any investigation as to whether their documents were genuine, but a 2005 US senate report [10] comments that the original article "apparently included forged documents". [...] The Christian Science Monitor also published a story on April 25, 2003 stating that they had documentary evidence that he had received "more than ten million dollars" from the Iraqi regime. However, on June 20, 2003, the Monitor reported that their own investigation had concluded the documents were sophisticated forgeries, and apologised. Galloway rejected the newspaper's apology, asserted that the affair was a conspiracy against him, and continued a libel claim against the paper. The Christian Science Monitor settled the claim, paying him an undisclosed sum in damages, on March 19, 2004. [11] [12] It emerged that these documents had first been offered to the Daily Telegraph, but they had rejected them. The documents' origin remains obscure.

Frankly, I think this whole Oil for Food scandal has been sexed up by the Republicans and especially the foolish Norm Coleman to create a wedge into the UN and force out Kofi Annan. And it's refreshing to have someone on Capitol Hill vigorously attempt to let the people know that the BushCo empire has no clothes. But I'm just warning ya'll that the messenger might not necessarily be wearing bleached white.