GEORGE GALLOWAY has won a libel judgment against the Telegraph. Apparently his support for Saddam’s regime was freely given, rather than bought.

UPDATE: Actually, it’s not so clear that the charges were proved false; the question seems to have been whether the Telegraph was neutral not whether it was accurate, and truth is not a defense in British libel law if I recall correctly. But Galloway’s certainly treating it as a vindication, and is already working on a comeback:

Fresh from his libel victory over the Daily Telegraph, George Galloway this evening announced his intention to challenge the Labour MP Oona King at the general election.

Mr Galloway – who was expelled from the Labour party over his opposition to the invasion of Iraq – believes the large Muslim community in Ms King’s Bethnal Green and Bow constituency, in east London, would welcome his anti-war message.

He is seeking the nomination of the anti-war Respect coalition, which he co-founded with the Socialist Workers party to capitalise on the recent renaissance of the peace movement.

If anybody knows more about the truth issues, send me a link. I’ve looked at several stories and none actually says the charge was disproved.

ANOTHER UPDATE: David M. has looked further, and believes that the charges probably were false, though the legal posture didn’t require their truth to be proved or disproved. So I guess Galloway was giving it away, rather than charging for it.

MORE: Even more here, from someone who seems to have followed the trial closely: “It also looks like the judge also did not question the authenticity of the documents, although he didn’t verify them either. His verdict was based upon the Telegraph making claims that supposedly went beyond what was contained in their evidence, such as calling Galloway a ‘traitor’.” Yes, it’s certainly unimaginable that anyone would think Galloway disloyal.

Andrew Sullivan has more.