AS AN ADOLESCENT, I regularly watched professional wrestling on television. Showing early geek tendencies, I usually enjoyed the ring-side interviews more than the matches themselves. My favorite interviews were the ones where a villain with a thick foreign accent hurled invective at America, attacked the manliness and lineage of his next good-guy foe, and denied committing the dirty deeds witnessed by the television audience the previous week. Whether the foreign villain was named Fritz von Erich, Ivan Koloff, or Professor Tanaka, the critique of America usually centered on the same theme–decadence. Minority groups such as blacks and Jews could not be attacked directly, but if a racist or anti-semitic subtext seeped through, that was okay.
Not all villains remained bad forever, and those who reformed could expect extra rough treatment from their former comrades. Wrestler reformation always occurred dramatically. In the middle of a match, a villain would suddenly join forces with a former antagonist, and the two “strange bedfellows” would subdue, for example, an over-the-top foreigner.
Last week, Washington was treated to a performance worthy of the old World Wrestling Federation. The featured player, George Galloway, even carries the nickname of the man who invented the modern wrestling villain, Gorgeous George. Physically, Galloway has patented one of the classic bad-guy wrestler looks, the perfectly-attired well-tailored ruffian. Then there’s that Scottish accent, at its best when delivering the sneering insult. As when, on his way into the “arena,” Galloway called fellow Brit and former “comrade” on the left, Christopher Hitchens, a “drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay.” “Classy” Fred Blassie would have been proud of that one.
Upon reaching the microphones, Gorgeous George followed the wrestling villains’ interview handbook (foreigners’ chapter) flawlessly. He missed nothing–there was the reference to American decadence (“I know that standards have slipped in Washington”); there was flamboyant name-calling and anti-semitic overtones (“Zionist” and “neo-conservative”); there was the attempt to answer charges of specific misconduct (participating in the oil-for-food scam) with counterchanges of general wrongdoing (supporting an “illegal” war); there were even the “who are you going to believe?” denials.
The only difference was that Galloway doesn’t just play a villain on TV. He once praised Saddam Hussein for his “courage, strength, [and] indefatigability.” More specifically, he saluted Saddam for paying suicide-murderers in Israel and the West Bank. The worst day in Galloway’s life, he says, was the day the Soviet Union fell. But he found consolation because, “just as Stalin industrialized the Soviet Union, so on a different scale Saddam plotted Iraq’s Great Leap Forward.” When Britain joined the United States in ending Saddam’s great leap, Galloway called for a jihad against its troops and for the troops themselves to disobey “illegal” orders (Galloway had said that prosecution of the war is illegal). Hitchens made many of these points and more during his “grudge match” with Galloway in THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
The evidence strongly suggests that Saddam rewarded Galloway’s fealty by granting him oil allocations. It was through such allocations that Saddam turned the U.N.’s “oil-for-food” program to his advantage. The regime selected purchasers of Iraqi oil, who then sold it on the market. Instead of selecting traditional oil purchasers, the government preferred foreign officials, journalists, and even terrorist organizations. In exchange for the enormous benefits of being the gatekeepers of Iraqi oil, the purchasers served Iraq’s interests, typically by working against the U.N. sanctions and by kicking back money to the regime.
The substantial evidence of Galloway’s participation in this scam is carefully summarized in a report by the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, part of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (the body before which Galloway testified last week). It consists of statements by top Saddam-era Iraqi officials and documents from “SOMO,” the Iraqi ministry that administered the oil-for-food program. The incriminating statements include the testimony of former Iraqi vice president Taha Yassin Ramadan, who told the subcommittee that Galloway was granted oil allocations because of “his opinions about Iraq” and his desire “to lift the embargo against Iraq.” In addition, an unnamed former Iraqi official told the U.S. Treasury Department that Galloway “benefited tremendously from the illegal trade of oil by Iraq” as the owner of a company involved in the oil trade scheme.
The documents confirm that Galloway’s company received six oil allocations totaling 20 million barrels of oil. Some are charts created after the fall of Saddam’s regime listing oil contracts and identifying Galloway by name as the contracting party. Others are contemporaneous documents, created by SOMO while Saddam was still in power, that describe contracts and identify Galloway by name. A typical such document says “. . .please find below the details of the contract signed with Middle East ASI Company (on behalf of Mr. George Galloway).”
What did Gorgeous George have to say about the documents? Why, anyone could have written them. As to the incriminating testimony, we all know how the U.S. treats Iraqi prisoners. Since SOMO officials have authenticated the documents, Galloway’s defense boils down to a claim that the evidence against him is the product of bribery or coercion, coupled with his vehement denial of wrongdoing. As to the credibility of the latter, one should keep in mind that Galloway has asserted that his statement to Saddam, “Sir, I salute you courage, strength, and indefatigability,” was directed at the Iraqi people in general.
Leftist bloggers and important elements of the mainstream media gushed over Galloway’s wrestling interview-style performance. Some wondered why Democratic senators weren’t more like Gorgeous George. Never mind that Britain’s Labour party expelled Galloway for bringing the party into disrepute.
Fortunately, the subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, Senator Carl Levin, had no desire to be like George. In a version of the “strange bedfellows” wrestling scenario, Levin stood side-by-side with the Republican chairman, Senator Norm Coleman, demanding straight answers to straight questions. In response, Galloway derided Levin for supporting the “illegal” war in Iraq, something Levin says he never did. Maybe the Jewish name fooled Galloway.
At the end of his day in Washington, Galloway, in the words of the Scotsman was “no closer to clearing his name than when he took his seat in front of the subcommittee.” The admirer of Stalin and Saddam had, however, become a hero to the adolescent element of the American left.
Paul Mirengoff is a contributor to the blog Power Line and a contributing writer to The Daily Standard.
