Hmmm.....

Listening to George Galloway being questioned by the Congress Senate, I don't find myself particularly surprised by anything that was said. He didn't say anything that you wouldn't hear a defendant say on Law & Order.

Essentially, Galloway is claiming that he is innocent, and that the people testifying against him were forced to lie, or bribed to lie with the promise of a plea agreement when the war crimes trials against the Baathists start.

He brought up Abu Ghraib, that that the Iraq War is (in his opinion) a disaster, and the fact that some of the prisoners at Guantanamo are British citizens (by which he obviously hopes to drum up British nationalist sentiment to bear against US).

He also suggested that the people pushing for oil-for-food investigations are more interested in punishing him for being antiwar than for seeking justice.

For what it's worth, I suspect that he is right that a lot of people are more concerned with punishing him for being against the war than they are in seeking justice on the Oil-for-Food scandal. Problem is, the fact that they have impure motivations doesn't change whether or not he is guilty or innocent. I disagreed with the decision to push for regime change in Iraq, but now that Saddam is in custody, I think we should fry him. Same with Galloway; if he did it, we should make him bungee jump with a non-stretching rope.

I also can't help but find something repulsive about the man.

In any case, I will try to keep my antiwar sentiment from coloring my opinion of Galloway's guilt or innocence. I bear no illusions that all anti-war people are good guys.

That is all.