I could barely believe my eyes and ears, least of all, I could barely believe Galloway.

He lost me with the "lip spittle" comments, or whatever it was close to that. The man seems completely barbaric, crazed. I would never even assume he came close to heroic, but then, I'm not a moonbat.

Never was a term more appropriate as that ("moonbat") as it was today, hearing and viewing Galloway's insane performance.

I use the words, "insane performance" in reference to Galloway as can be identified in his comments, that, "if you'd listened to me, we wouldn't find ourselves in the mess that we are in" (close enough, I didn't transcribe the performance).

HE's the guy being questioned about his acceptance of monies from Saddam Hussein. Not the world, not everyone else, but him.

And, that "mess" "we find ourselves in" -- it's only as messy as Galloway insists that it be. As in, the man seems to be dancing very ardently in attempts to step aside, and instead, is smack in the middle.

...and moonbats don't like Bolton??? whatever dude.

Galloway - I caught some of the hearing this morning - is one of the most completely histrionic and narcissistic individuals that I have ever witnessed, and I'm saying that as a psych nurse. That's just my clinical observation. Slimey is another. Gag, I bet his casual wardrobe ensemble includes a gold chain and pinky ring.

His flagrant personality disorder will be his undoing. Cluster B's (histrionics, narcissists and ant-socials) almost always over-estimate their abilities; grandiosity being a central theme.

All the committee needs to do is keep him on task, get the facts and give him enough rope. Although, sadly, there really aren't any bad outcomes for him. His majority Islamic constituents will re-elect him over and over again.

Yep. He's crazy, penny. I completey agree.

I tend to avoid the use of that word, but in Galloway's case, it's necessary.

It's not often that congressional testimony on a war-related matter can make us LOL... but it was hard not to, when viewing clips of this today.

Despite being a leftist, Galloway concurred with the conservative position (lowercase "c") on the Iraq war, against the socialist Blair government. I've read that Margaret Thatcher has also taken that position.

Someone at today's hearings (apparently, Coleman wasn't up to it) needed to remind Galloway -- and someone also needs to remind the bleacher bums cheering him on -- that the subject of the hearing was not his delusional verdict on the war in Iraq, but the largest financial scandal in human history, run under the watch of people he claims we should have heeded before going into Iraq -- people who were by and large bribed to disagree with us.

His use of the phrase "mother of all smokescreens" was telling. Now, from whom did we first hear this figure of speech?

Galloway obviously isn't going to admit his transgretions! He is pulling an OJ...

"Absolutely Cockahoot",someone should name a drink after that. I'm sure the walls of the senate never heard that one before.

He didn't sound crazy to me, i understood his rantings clearly. And I agree that he has a right to know who his accuser is. But he should return the money donated to him from the iraqi businessman that was getting oil vouchers.

He didn't seem to understand people were dying under the OFF program as well as under the harsh sanctions before OFF. He's only upset that people were dying because of the sanctions, but not due to UN corruption under OFF.

So we tried it both ways and still the Iraqs suffered. Sanctions will never work unless it's universal, like under partied. And Humanitarian programs in the UN are beyond corrupt, they are criminal. Good luck trying universal sanctions on an oil producing nation, it will never happen.

"A committee lawyer is running through the evidence of 4 oil allocations made to Galloway, adding that a "senior Iraqi official" had confirmed, just yesterday, that the supporting documentation was genuine."

I'm sure it will surprise no one here but, I'm confused, single, anonymous sources are good now?

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/news/newswire.php/news/reuters/2004/12/02/topnews/gallowaywinslibelcaseoveriraq.html
The last people who accused George Galloway also ended up with egg on their faces.
He may not be the most endearing of characters but, he has turned out to be right....
If these senators have facts, let them present them. So far I have seen nothing to justify their accusations.
Never was fond of George, but in this I wish him all the very best.

Cosmo, you may not have noticed that Galloways verdict on the war, (predicated on lies etc), is actually correct. The reasons for going to war were ficticious, plain and simple. It leaves me wondering who is the deluded one here.
As for the largest financial scandal in history, I think once the Texan company Bayoil's story comes to the fore, and Bush Snr and Jnr turning a blind eye to the $37 million in kickbacks, it might start getting close

Phil, it's time to bury the "lies going to war" meme. It has been sliced and diced all over the internet for years now. Iraq has moved on. Most of us have moved on. Terrorism rages on as it has for decades. That's the intelligent focus now.

Galloway isn't before this hearing for his opinions on American foreign policy. No one gives a damn what he thinks about it. The focus is his OFF dealings with Saddam.

Quinn...ah, but it's very common that greatly delusionals are greatly understandable. And, while I share with you in understanding Galloway, it still doesn't lessen his nuttiness. I'd say he's incredibly delusional, with grandeur being his cake walk, among narcicism, egoism and the hystrionic petulence of the persecution of the grand master planner. Same responses from Saddam Hussein for a long time, by the way.

I'm just saying that Galloway hasn't much to stand on as to receiving funds from the Saddam problem via the U.N. and all he has to go on is his illustrious vocabulary and insulting those to whom he spoke. It's an avoidance tact, call it smokescreen, call it cunning...still crazy.

He's among the most outrageously crazed persons I think I've yet to ever hear/view in the public. Senator Biden comes in the top ten, while Castro probably is second place. But, Galloway takes the ever so special and flamboyant blue ribbon in this category.

Think of it this way: as long as Galloway keeps the outpouring of illustrious accusations and glares down anyone who "dares to" question him, he can't be asked any more questions. The way to handle people like Galloway is give them a lot of rope and then wait.

This a man that was not only removed from office but kicked out of the party. If i had take a few million in kickbacks i'd deny it to. He is a Ahole in Britian and he showed he is an Ahole whereever he is. Notice how he ignored every question when ask 'is this not your signature on this document'. He was ask several times and never replied, just went on a childish temper tantum about being framed. He's fried in any court in the world that doesn't have a left wing judge, then like Ca. is with so called stars, they wouldn't be convicted if you had a movie of them comitting the crime. But he is a poster boy for the lefties in the U.S., criminally insane, a thief and a liar, just up their alley. Hey, has anyone checked to see if he's screaming Dean's evil twin.

frameone grunts: "I'm sure it will surprise no one here but, I'm confused, single, anonymous sources are good now?"

What part of "supporting documentation" did you not understand?

frameone:"I'm sure it will surprise no one here but, I'm confused, single, anonymous "

Shouldn't that be in a dating service blog?

I'm very discouraged that a bunch of British civilian experts were once again able to easily detect the best forgeries Feith's psych-ops group could cook up to smear this Galloway traitor. We seriously need to get those boys in for some real spook training from Goss's side now that Negroponte's running the show.

Let's just hope they were competent enough that the Moonbat bloggers don't trace it back to the source -- we don't need that kind of blowback in Dear Leader's face right now.

I'm very discouraged that a bunch of British civilian experts were once again able to easily detect the best forgeries Feith's psych-ops group could cook up to smear this Galloway traitor. We seriously need to get those boys in for some real spook training from Goss's side now that Negroponte's running the show.

Let's just hope that Team B bunch was competent enough that the Moonbat bloggers don't trace it back to the source -- we don't need that kind of blowback in Dear Leader's face right now.

"... a "senior Iraqi official" had confirmed, just yesterday, that the supporting documentation (some of which specifically names Galloway as an allocation recipient) was genuine."

And Mark what part of "was genuine" didn't you understand? As in a single, anonymous source confirmed the supporting documentation was genuine. Jeez, that sounds like what you all accussed CBS of going in with.

And you gotta love Penny's excuse: "Hey, we've been over this a thousand times, the president lied to us. Just get over it and move on."

You know if you guys think that liberals go out of there way to attack this president could someone here tell what the limits of your defense of him and his administration is?

And you gotta love Penny's excuse: "Hey, we've been over this a thousand times, the president lied to us. Just get over it and move on."

You know if you guys think that liberals go out of their way to attack this president could someone here tell what the limits of your defense of him and his administration is?

Penny, lies are lies, whenever they are told and no matter how many times they are discussed. To suggest we should forget them and move on, is to encourage future politicians to believe we are all mugs. At what point do you start to object to being lied to? I take it your personal statue of limitations on liars is somewhat shorter then most peoples.
If politicians are allowed to get away with such extraodinary deceits without question, the world is headed down a very dangerous path.
I have no liking for Mr Galloway, and I am not at all sure he is innocent, I do however agree with him on one point. Whatever illegalities this committee uncover, they pale into insignificance compared to the acts perpetrated by the US and UK governements in an effort to convince us war was necessary.

The mainstream press refers to Galloway as a "British Lawmaker."

Conveniently skirts his historic associations with Marxists, Palestinians, Baathists, Soviets (like Putin, he bitterly regretted the fall of the Soviet Union), etc.

Thats right Palmeteer, its called democracy here. He is an elected representative of the people in his constituancy, and unlike many politicians he is surprisingly open about his beliefs. Oddly, the people still chose him...
So, if you profess to support the democratic process, you take the rough with the smooth.

As an aside: I have to admit that I had not heard of Norm Coleman until recently, but I'm here to give him props for the way he and his committee have handled this whole thing. Minnesota voters, you made a good pick here. "The theater, the dramatics -- I was not looking at that". Classic quote! I'll have to remember that.

For the record, I don't think Bush lied. There is a big difference between acting on the incorrect information of others(Bush) and manufacturing incorrect information(Newsweek).

My point was that, I feel, it's time to move on past the Bush Lied mantra that every liberal seems to keep a conversation frozen with.

Galloway was golden. Rummy beholden, bushs brain a coke freeze and al that flowed was a greasy river of black. Knockout-Round one-victory to Galloway. watch out Amrika! the games have just beGun!

Duel on the hill.

It is a long way from Bethnal Green (uk) to the US Senate's Dirksen buiding on Capital Hill, but George Galloway was in street-fighting form yesterday as he confronted the sub-committee investigating the illegal sale of Iraqi oil under Saddam Hussein's regime. I beleive that Norm Coleman, its Republican chairman, stayed cool as the Respect MP lambasted him and his colleagues for traducing his reputation, poured scorn on America's "cavalier" attitude to justice and flaunted his own reputation as a man of peace who had opposed UN sanctions - "infanticide masquerading as politics" - and an illegal war based on a "pack of lies".

But you had to wonder whether the hour-long session was worth the transatlantic flight. Mr Galloway, under oath, insisted he had never benefited from any oil sales, a point he has made in successful libel actions against the Daily Telegraph (here in the uk) and the Christian Science Monitor and on many other occassions. I would say he scored several points. The easiest was when he retorted that he had only met Saddam Hussein twice - not "many times" as the committee claimed - the same number as Donald Rumsfeld when the US was backing Iraq's war against Iran. Galloway recalled that he had condemned the Ba'athist dictatorship "in the most withering terms". But he was impassive as Mr Coleman quoted his famous TV salute to Saddam's "courage, strength and indefatigability". British observers often admire the work of US congressional committees, comparing them to toothless Westminister equivalents. Yet this was a poor and ill-prepared display.

If there was a chink in Mr Galloway's armour it concerned his friend, Fawaz Zureikat, the Jordanian contributor to the Mariam charity appeal who documents did show trading in oil with Iraq. The MP would not say whether he would have been troubled to discover the source of his largesse. But of proof of wrongdoing on his own part, there was none. These exchanges may not have settled anything definitively, but they did serve as a reminder of the passion and fury that is still generated on both sides of the Atlantic by Iraq's unfinished war.

It wasn't supposed to be like this. Even when Daniel was in the lion's den, he didn't humiliate and torment the lion.

But that's what George Galloway did in Washington to the senator who accused him of making millions from Saddam oil. Mr Galloway not only defended himself robustly but also threw the charges back in the face of the American administration.

The jibe which must have most stung them was when the Respect MP pointed out that their own Donald Rumsfeld, had twice met Saddam to sell him arms. In the heart of Washington yesterday, George Galloway showed the US that not all Britains approve of what is being done in Iraq.

Ed, Galloway's libel win determined nothing about his possible criminal behavior as this blogger has carefully demonstrated:

http://centersquare.blogspot.com/2005/05/giving-propers.html

It ain't over until the Fat Lady sings.

Galloway is a pathetic representative for showing American's that some Brit's disapprove of us. He came across as slimey and bombastic.

God bless Galloway. I haven't been this entertained by someone with guts giving a decent defence to the usual US govt smearings and muck raking. I know 'facts' are pretty reviled in America these days, but this was a classic.

It was put up or shut up time. Weak willed feeble minded senators who don't understand what 'robust debate' is are left simply saying ' we wanted it on record' as their attack. It's nice to find some people, however lively speaking they might be, not afraid of a Superpowers rabid moral highground bleatings anymore.

They had nothing on him and they looked like fools to the world. TO save face, they've now decided to pick on a Russian about to be convicted of tax evasion...a man they once defended. Hahaha!

Ed and a few others here:

Galloway was required to answer questions -- or explain why he would not -- in response to questions about HIS behavior, about HIS actions and those under his purview, as to specific financial and political misdeeds (that's the milktoast, kind term for "thefts").

His insistence on verbally abusing the sun, moon, stars and the United States Presidency and Republicans was irrelevant to his own situation, and that's where his craziness becomes apparent.

Think of it this way: Galloway is stopped by a Highway Patrol officer in Arizona on Interstate 10, his rate of vehicular speed measured (by instrument with recorded findings) at 80 m.p.h.

The posted maximum speed on that road, that specific area measured, is "55 m.p.h."

Highway Patrol officer asks Galloway, who is visibly angry and outspoken for being pulled over ("how DARE they stop ME!") and when finally asked by the H.P. officer, "do you know how fast you were going?" Galloway responds: "YOU can't stop ME! YOU can't pull me over HERE! Look at your OWN vehicle! Were you not going my speed inorder to even match my speed in the first place? And what about your uniform! Explain THAT to me! How DARE you stop me in that uniform that you probably did not even PAY for YOURSELF! And on this plain where wars and rumors of wars occured over time immortal! Have you even paid your TAXES?! Are you going home to your WIFE?! What political party do you belong to and what about all the OTHER MOTORISTS who are travelling at a greater rate of speed than even -I- was? Have you even EXPLAINED why you didn't stop THEM but stopped ME instead? No? Because you CAN'T! You CANNOT EXPLAIN why the world is round, or even flat! And yet you fail to even entertain the very notion that the world may be flat, it may be round, but you cannot make ME admit to either because you have no evidence as to flat earthers or round earthers even being present at this moment in time!..."

Do you not see that the hearing was for purposes of posing direct questions to Galloway about HIS specific behaviors and that he instead dodged any/all possible answers by instead lapsing into an irrelevant rant about all things possible except what he was asked?

Those are the behaviors of either or both lunacy or avoidance. I understand he and most people would feel negative emotions at even being called before a Senate process that they had not solicited notice by, but Galloway seems to have been the abuser in yesterday's process, not the United States, not "the war," not the conditions upon which we and allied countries conducted "war," not the Senators, not the political party affiliation of the Senators present, but GALLOWAY. HIS actions. HIS character. He was asked to answer questions and instead, flamed the world.

I'd say it's a good bet that if he was, in fact, that motorist in Arizona, his chances of not getting ticketed based upon HIS OWN BEHAVIOR in that circumstance would be zero. And nary a judge in any court of the land would accept the "but everyone else was speeding" excuse as an acceptable defense.

Which is, again, why Galloway proved one point to many of us viewers: that he's going to great lengths to avoid answering specific questions, or that he's nutty as a soaked fruitcake, or, probably both.

I'm betting Galloway has something he'd rather not "the world" (either flat or round) uncover and publicize and if/when that occurs, will simply (continue with his lambasting) lambast anyone doing the uncovering.

He either accepted funds from a Saddam Hussein financial network that took U.N. dollars intended for other efforts, or he didn't.

He can't answer because he can't answer. Instead, he's creating a smokey environment of "lick spittle" pejoratives because he's upset that he's being dared to even be questioned.

If he's not involved in the "Oil for Food" scandal (Hussein, U.N., etc.), then he should have reasonable explanations as to who "contributed" to his "political campaign" and how and why. If not, Galloway trying to blame the su