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.
"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."
Okay-- in this we are in agreement and I am not hearing double messages.
And to simply restate my belief: I don't think anyone has presented evidence that will convict Galloway of anything, but that doesn't mean his support of Saddam (even while "condemning" him as a brutal dictator) is not despicable.
BTW: "condemning" while obstructing and supporting makes him a two-faced POS, just in case you were wondering.