"You can call a man a "brutal dictator" and still do nothing to remove him-- and indeed obstruct his removal. What does this make YOU?
Not You-- what does it make Galloway? He's the one we're talking about. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Also, you seem to profess hatred for Galloway yet in the same breath defend him. That's why I said you seem to be spoiling for a fight-- don't know why that necessitates "growing up " on my account.
Why don't you just speak plainly instead of condemning and supporting in the same breath-- as I might add your anti-hero Galloway seems to be so adept at.
Galloway should be condemned for what he does wrong, not for what he didn't do wrong.
The whole point of the hearing was not that he had some dodgy friends, or met Saddam or had a crappy tan, but that the senate said he had taken oil-for-food vouchers. He said he hadn't and in fact the Senators had no proof of that.
That was the whole point of the hearing - nothing more.